FBI does not provide recovery services. Your entire worldview is so skewed from reality that it's sad.
You read that on the Crowdstrike page and parroting it just like you made fun of Ray McGovern while reading off Wikipedia.
Show me where the FBI says they don't do recovery services and that's why they did not handle the case.
Also, even if we take your assertion at face value, why would the FBI not be involved directly in some way until the recovery phrase? A foreign country hacking a major political party is a huge violation of national security. This goes beyond your everyday cyber crime. Why would they let some private firm handle the whole thing and rely only on their report? Presumably they would be involved with the detection and identifying of what happened even if then turning it over to Crowdstrike to finish the job of restoring the business-ready environment.
Of course the Sussman verdict has nothing to do with proving anything about Trump/Russia. No one says it does.
What it does tell us is that the Durham investigation's entire premise is full of poop. He is trying to prove that the Russia investigations were politically motivated, AND HE HAS FAILED. Stupendously.
And Maddow has nothing to do with any of this, as much as you guys love to bash her.
---------------------------- I think the Durham investigation, despite its flaws, did show the politically motivated origins of Russiagate.
Of course the Sussman verdict has nothing to do with proving anything about Trump/Russia. No one says it does.
What it does tell us is that the Durham investigation's entire premise is full of poop. He is trying to prove that the Russia investigations were politically motivated, AND HE HAS FAILED. Stupendously.
And Maddow has nothing to do with any of this, as much as you guys love to bash her.
---------------------------- I think the Durham investigation, despite its flaws, did show the politically motivated origins of Russiagate.
I don't have a clue what we're even talking about anymore.
Are you saying that I, or someone here, admitted to the Russia investigations as being politically motivated?
Durham's original assignment was to investigate whether he could blame the FBI's investigation on political motives at the FBI. He can't find any evidence of that.
Durham's original assignment was to investigate whether he could blame the FBI's investigation on political motives at the FBI. He can't find any evidence of that.
Yeah, but Mate seems to think that because the prosecutor in the Sussman trial spent hours and hours talking about conspiracy theories that that somehow proved the politicization of the investigation.
FBI does not provide recovery services. Your entire worldview is so skewed from reality that it's sad.
You read that on the Crowdstrike page and parroting it just like you made fun of Ray McGovern while reading off Wikipedia.
Show me where the FBI says they don't do recovery services and that's why they did not handle the case.
Also, even if we take your assertion at face value, why would the FBI not be involved directly in some way until the recovery phrase? A foreign country hacking a major political party is a huge violation of national security. This goes beyond your everyday cyber crime. Why would they let some private firm handle the whole thing and rely only on their report? Presumably they would be involved with the detection and identifying of what happened even if then turning it over to Crowdstrike to finish the job of restoring the business-ready environment.
I'm starting to think that @nan is simply trolling us. I mean, seriously. We're supposed to show her where the FBI says that it doesn't provide recovery services for private entities? I'm sure it's on the FBI's website right next to where it says that they don't sell operate ice cream trucks.
But, as an example, my employer's network was breached last year (it was observed in real time because it is monitored). When observed, the network was physically disconnected from the internet and other intranets. The FBI investigate, but IBM (pretty sure it was IBM) was retained to rebuild and secure the network. Every computer was either replaced or had the drive reimaged and the FBI did none of that.
Go back to page 4 and this is what drummerboy said.
Go back to Page 9 and this is what you said:
But it does not fit your view that Russiagate was a real connection between Trump and Russia and thatthe Clinton campaign was not politically motivated in exposing it (not creating it).
The Clinton campaign’s exposure attempts were not the origins of Russiagate.
Yeah, but Mate seems to think that because the prosecutor in the Sussman trial spent hours and hours talking about conspiracy theories that that somehow proved the politicization of the investigation.
I'm starting to think that @nan is simply trolling us. I mean, seriously. We're supposed to show her where the FBI says that it doesn't provide recovery services for private entities? I'm sure it's on the FBI's website right next to where it says that they don't sell operate ice cream trucks.
But, as an example, my employer's network was breached last year (it was observed in real time because it is monitored). When observed, the network was physically disconnected from the internet and other intranets. The FBI investigate, but IBM (pretty sure it was IBM) was retained to rebuild and secure the network. Every computer was either replaced or had the drive reimaged and the FBI did none of that.
Who is the troll? You said the FBI does not provide recovery services. I asked you to show me where the FBI said they did not provide recovery services. You can't do that so you accuse me of trolling.
Then you give an example that supports what I originally said.
I'm starting to think that @nan is simply trolling us. I mean, seriously. We're supposed to show her where the FBI says that it doesn't provide recovery services for private entities? I'm sure it's on the FBI's website right next to where it says that they don't sell operate ice cream trucks.
But, as an example, my employer's network was breached last year (it was observed in real time because it is monitored). When observed, the network was physically disconnected from the internet and other intranets. The FBI investigate, but IBM (pretty sure it was IBM) was retained to rebuild and secure the network. Every computer was either replaced or had the drive reimaged and the FBI did none of that.
Who is the troll? You said the FBI does not provide recovery services. I asked you to show me where the FBI said they did not provide recovery services. You can't do that so you accuse me of trolling.
Then you give an example that supports what I originally said.
why don't you show us where the FBI says they do provide recovery services?
Yeah, but Mate seems to think that because the prosecutor in the Sussman trial spent hours and hours talking about conspiracy theories that that somehow proved the politicization of the investigation.
Lots of important stuff came out during trial that show the real scandal is not that Sussman lied, but that the FBI worked with the Clinton campaign and their contractors (Fusion GPS, Crowdstrike) which generated the core allegation of Russiagate that Trump colluded with Russia. Fusion GPS, which was a Clinton campaign client and produced the Steele Dossier, which the FBI used and the allegations of Russian hacking from Crowdstrike (which Crowdstrike has now under oath said they could not tell if they came from Russia).
That "important stuff" had nothing to do with the charge against Sussman. It was just an attempt by Durham to get assertions that he could not prove into the record. Somehow you (and Mate) think that this proves the politicization of the Russia investigations.
I'm starting to think that @nan is simply trolling us. I mean, seriously. We're supposed to show her where the FBI says that it doesn't provide recovery services for private entities? I'm sure it's on the FBI's website right next to where it says that they don't sell operate ice cream trucks.
But, as an example, my employer's network was breached last year (it was observed in real time because it is monitored). When observed, the network was physically disconnected from the internet and other intranets. The FBI investigate, but IBM (pretty sure it was IBM) was retained to rebuild and secure the network. Every computer was either replaced or had the drive reimaged and the FBI did none of that.
Who is the troll? You said the FBI does not provide recovery services. I asked you to show me where the FBI said they did not provide recovery services. You can't do that so you accuse me of trolling.
Then you give an example that supports what I originally said.
Why don't you show us that you're a sentient being. I really can't believe that you interpret the FBI investigating as providing recovery services. I stated that IBM (hint: IBM ≠ FBI) provided the recovery services.
I'm starting to think that @nan is simply trolling us. I mean, seriously. We're supposed to show her where the FBI says that it doesn't provide recovery services for private entities? I'm sure it's on the FBI's website right next to where it says that they don't sell operate ice cream trucks.
But, as an example, my employer's network was breached last year (it was observed in real time because it is monitored). When observed, the network was physically disconnected from the internet and other intranets. The FBI investigate, but IBM (pretty sure it was IBM) was retained to rebuild and secure the network. Every computer was either replaced or had the drive reimaged and the FBI did none of that.
Who is the troll? You said the FBI does not provide recovery services. I asked you to show me where the FBI said they did not provide recovery services. You can't do that so you accuse me of trolling.
Then you give an example that supports what I originally said.
Why don't you show us that you're a sentient being. I really can't believe that you interpret the FBI investigating as providing recovery services. I stated that IBM (hint: IBM ≠ FBI) provided the recovery services.
It would be kind of odd for the FBI to provide recovery services. That's clearly not their job.
It would be kind of odd for the FBI to provide recovery services. That's clearly not their job.
It's was not their job to use the Steele Dossier to get a FISA warrent on Carter Page, but here we are. What's clear is that the FBI sometimes goes out of bounds and does stuff we don't think they do or should. In the case of supposed Russian cyber interference with a major political party, I'd think they would want to be involved with every aspect of the project, but it seems that they let Sussman shoo them off and took the report from Crowdstrike with little complaint. Not sure what is clear about "their job."
why don't you show us where the FBI says they do provide recovery services?
I never said that they do. I also said that did not matter.
That sheds some light on your second option below: You mean investigate without recovery services (presumably while still not accepting circumstantial evidence).
why don't you show us where the FBI says they do provide recovery services?
I never said that they do. I also said that did not matter.
That sheds some light on your second option below: You mean investigate without recovery services (presumably while still not accepting circumstantial evidence).
I would not be trying to create a fake connection between Trump and Putin so I would probably go with the best deal or just work with the FBI.
I'm one little person with a few chromebooks. I have different needs than the DNC and I doubt the Russian government is going to hack me. They can just log on to MOL themselves and get all the secrets.
I don't understand all this tech stuff. Perhaps this discussion should be in a Tech category rather than Politics.
But as to Politics, Trump mad a speech in which he said something like "Russia, if your listening, maybe you can find Hillary's missing emails".
That was the gem of the notion that Russia might do something to help Trump and that the Trump people would seek that help. After he became President Trump was more than deferential to Putin, to say the least.
I don't understand all this tech stuff. Perhaps this discussion should be in a Tech category rather than Politics.
But as to Politics, Trump mad a speech in which he said something like "Russia, if your listening, maybe you can find Hillary's missing emails".
That was the gem of the notion that Russia might do something to help Trump and that the Trump people would seek that help. After he became President Trump was more than deferential to Putin, to say the least.
Actually, the last day of excitement has been on what constitutes evidence, so this is right up your alley.
I don't understand all this tech stuff. Perhaps this discussion should be in a Tech category rather than Politics.
But as to Politics, Trump mad a speech in which he said something like "Russia, if your listening, maybe you can find Hillary's missing emails".
That was the gem of the notion that Russia might do something to help Trump and that the Trump people would seek that help. After he became President Trump was more than deferential to Putin, to say the least.
The details can be complicated, but the general concepts aren't.
If you read the transcript of Henry's interview, there's basically three things to notice:
1. Crowdstrike saw evidence that the data was prepared for copying from the DNC system to the hacker's system ("exfiltration").
2. The data was exfiltrated, but Crowdstrike was not able to directly observe this.
3. They were able to verify that the exfiltrated data matched the data they saw prepped for exfiltration. For that latter point, from the transcript:
"Henry: So, to be clear, on the document dump, as you've referred to it, there was data that we know was taken off of the DCCC. And we've, I think, chronicled, documented that in the report. There is evidence of exfiltration, not conclusive, but indicators of exfiltration off the DNC. As the person who led the investigation into both of those remediations, I can state those facts. I don't know that I should speculate on why it may have been done. So we did look at hash values, so algorithms of the documents that the FBI had provided, and compared that with documents that came off of the DNC, and they were consistent."
A hash value is basically a fingerprint for a file. It takes the content and turns it into a unique string. Changing the contents of the file even slightly changes that string (the "hash value"). You can try it for yourself. For example, if you go here:
Type in "hello world" and see the hash (you can see it actually gives you two hashes - MD5 and SHA1. There's a lot of different hash algorithms, but conceptually they all do the same thing -- take content and turn it into a unique string). Change the text just a bit -- add a space, or capitalize a letter -- and you'll see it gives you a different value.
What that means is that if I have the hash value for a file, and you give me another file, and the hash values match, they are the same file.
So if we go back to point 2 above, where Henry says that they infer, but do not have direct evidence, of the exfiltration, we can see that's not really the smoking gun Nan is claiming. After all, they saw the documents in step 1. They confirmed it was the same documents in step 3. So, inarguably, there must have been a step in between where the data was actually exfiltrated, whether or not that exfiltration was directly observed.
What Nan has to argue here is that someone else exfiltrated the data, which is a stretch -- isn't it more likely that the actor who staged the data for exfiltration is the one who exfiltrated it? Is she claiming the Russians hacked into the system, got ready to exfiltrate, decided not to, and then someone else did? That would be a ridiculous theory, wouldn't it?
One is that the lack of direct evidence of the exfiltration (which basically just means copying the emails from the DNC server to somewhere else) justifies Aaron Mate's argument that there was no evidence at all of exfiltration, thereby ignoring the existence of considerable circumstantial evidence.
The second was a theory promulgated by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which tried to make the case that certain evidence showed that it was impossible for the data to have been copied from the server to another server. And that evidence somehow pointed to someone from the DNC copying the data. The theory was so weak that The Nation magazine, which originally published VIPS's contention had to issue a major disclaimer basically saying that VIPS's story was hogwash and did not meet technical muster.
I don't understand all this tech stuff. Perhaps this discussion should be in a Tech category rather than Politics.
But as to Politics, Trump mad a speech in which he said something like "Russia, if your listening, maybe you can find Hillary's missing emails".
That was the gem of the notion that Russia might do something to help Trump and that the Trump people would seek that help. After he became President Trump was more than deferential to Putin, to say the least.
Trump at first, rightly, said we should be getting along with the Russians. Obama had been fine with the Russians and many of us thought the cold war had ended. It was around then that rumors of Trump being in with Putin and that being a bad thing started and Trump had to distance himself, although the mainstream media continued for years with the "Bombshell" "Walls are Closing In" stories.
For all the accusations anyone who paid attention could see that Trump was not deferential to Putin. He sold arms to Ukraine, which Obama had refused to do (rightly), he bombed Syria, he withdrew from the nuclear agreement and some other things I can't remember. These were not Putin pleasing actions, but most Democrats just believed what Rachel Maddow and others on mainstream news said and went along with it.
Drummerboy said the Sussman verdict showed it was not politically motivated. Not something I would say.