Grenell Makes Shocking Announcement

[colfax_m]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

Who employed Crowdstrike?

.

The DNC. So what? The future of Crowdstrike’s business depends on their credibility and they wouldn’t sacrifice their viability as a company in order to appease a single client.

Still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

Yet they put out contradictory information, one to the public and FBI and one to congress. Their legitimacy is already in question.

.

They did nothing of the sort. You’re misinterpreting the testimony.

 

[colfax_m]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

 

[OKTexas]

I laugh -

A commercial written by crowdstrike on their website describing their testimony

versus

Testimony under oath.

Fascinating.

I guess you didn’t read it because the “commercial” included their testimony under oath that you ignored.

Furthermore, it doesn’t even prove your point. We aren’t relying solely on Crowdstrike to attribute the source of the hack. There was no bipartisan intelligence report which contradicted Obama.

RCP is hardly a right wing rag so may I present:

CrowdStrike President Under Oath: No Proof of Russia DNC Hack | RealClearPolitics

CrowdStrike President Under Oath: No Proof of Russia DNC Hack | RealClearPolitics

www.realclearpolitics.com

!

.

Mmm, beg to differ. I’ve seen some very shoddy work come out of RCP.

Picking one sentence out an entire investigation without any additional context in order to reach a conclusion. is about as intellectually dishonest as one could be.

That testimony was given before the Republican controlled HPSCI. Even the Republicans on that committee agreed it was Russia.

Flawed source information leads to flawed conclusions.

.

What source was flawed?

From what I've seen all 4 of them.

.

Name them be describe why they were flawed.

This is all nonsense, by the way. You don’t even have a comprehensive knowledge of their sources of information.

See post 139.

.

 

[WTF19]

Grenell is a political hack. His purpose as DNI was to turn the US intelligence agencies into a political propaganda organ to elect Trump, not provide information to maintain safety and security if Americans.

He’s fulfilling that purpose here. Just look at how the party faithful lap it up.

and look how you are reacting...it was real---the words are real---the only thing is --you choose not to believe the TRUTH do me a favor and back your words up with facts, ok?---good luck

 

[colfax_m]

I laugh -

A commercial written by crowdstrike on their website describing their testimony

versus

Testimony under oath.

Fascinating.

I guess you didn’t read it because the “commercial” included their testimony under oath that you ignored.

Furthermore, it doesn’t even prove your point. We aren’t relying solely on Crowdstrike to attribute the source of the hack. There was no bipartisan intelligence report which contradicted Obama.

RCP is hardly a right wing rag so may I present:

CrowdStrike President Under Oath: No Proof of Russia DNC Hack | RealClearPolitics

CrowdStrike President Under Oath: No Proof of Russia DNC Hack | RealClearPolitics

www.realclearpolitics.com

!

.

Mmm, beg to differ. I’ve seen some very shoddy work come out of RCP.

Picking one sentence out an entire investigation without any additional context in order to reach a conclusion. is about as intellectually dishonest as one could be.

That testimony was given before the Republican controlled HPSCI. Even the Republicans on that committee agreed it was Russia.

Flawed source information leads to flawed conclusions.

.

What source was flawed?

From what I've seen all 4 of them.

.

Name them be describe why they were flawed.

This is all nonsense, by the way. You don’t even have a comprehensive knowledge of their sources of information.

See post 139.

.

And? Crowdstrike has done nothing to question their credibility. The sources that the government used were well beyond the capabilities of Crowdstrike and included sources placed inside the Kremlin.

There is no legitimate doubt as to the source of the hack and even Congressional Republicans long ago admitted it was Russia.

 

[OKTexas]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

They wipe the servers and restore them to previous backup versions. There’s no reason to destroy the hardware.

 

[OKTexas]

I laugh -

A commercial written by crowdstrike on their website describing their testimony

versus

Testimony under oath.

Fascinating.

I guess you didn’t read it because the “commercial” included their testimony under oath that you ignored.

Furthermore, it doesn’t even prove your point. We aren’t relying solely on Crowdstrike to attribute the source of the hack. There was no bipartisan intelligence report which contradicted Obama.

RCP is hardly a right wing rag so may I present:

CrowdStrike President Under Oath: No Proof of Russia DNC Hack | RealClearPolitics

CrowdStrike President Under Oath: No Proof of Russia DNC Hack | RealClearPolitics

www.realclearpolitics.com

!

.

Mmm, beg to differ. I’ve seen some very shoddy work come out of RCP.

Picking one sentence out an entire investigation without any additional context in order to reach a conclusion. is about as intellectually dishonest as one could be.

That testimony was given before the Republican controlled HPSCI. Even the Republicans on that committee agreed it was Russia.

Flawed source information leads to flawed conclusions.

.

What source was flawed?

From what I've seen all 4 of them.

.

Name them be describe why they were flawed.

This is all nonsense, by the way. You don’t even have a comprehensive knowledge of their sources of information.

See post 139.

.

And? Crowdstrike has done nothing to question their credibility. The sources that the government used were well beyond the capabilities of Crowdstrike and included sources placed inside the Kremlin.

There is no legitimate doubt as to the source of the hack and even Congressional Republicans long ago admitted it was Russia.

I have no doubt Russia tried, but several cyber experts have said the speed of the download could not have been accomplished via an internet connection. That indicated an inside job.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

They wipe the servers and restore them to previous backup versions. There’s no reason to destroy the hardware.

Wow, no one said anything about destroying the hardware, You might want to tell that little guy in your head to STFU. ROFL

.

 

[colfax_m]

I have no doubt Russia tried, but several cyber experts have said the speed of the download could not have been accomplished via an internet connection. That indicated an inside job.

Absolutely not. These “experts” made fundamental mistakes in their analysis by assuming the transfer they were evaluating was a transfer from the DNC servers to Romania. This is littered with unfounded assumptions, not the least of which is evidence that the data was transferred off the servers over a week before the transfer they were analyzing.

The US government has access to data logs showing when and where the data went from the DNC servers.

 

[colfax_m]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

They wipe the servers and restore them to previous backup versions. There’s no reason to destroy the hardware.

Wow, no one said anything about destroying the hardware, You might want to tell that little guy in your head to STFU. ROFL

.

I don’t know what you’re referring to about busybee01. The point stands. They don’t dismantle their servers, they remediate and repair them to keep them running as smoothly as possible.

This is pretty standard across the industry.

 

[OKTexas]

I have no doubt Russia tried, but several cyber experts have said the speed of the download could not have been accomplished via an internet connection. That indicated an inside job.

Absolutely not. These “experts” made fundamental mistakes in their analysis by assuming the transfer they were evaluating was a transfer from the DNC servers to Romania. This is littered with unfounded assumptions, not the least of which is evidence that the data was transferred off the servers over a week before the transfer they were analyzing.

The US government has access to data logs showing when and where the data went from the DNC servers.

Really, how did they get the logs when the DNC refused access to their servers?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

They wipe the servers and restore them to previous backup versions. There’s no reason to destroy the hardware.

Wow, no one said anything about destroying the hardware, You might want to tell that little guy in your head to STFU. ROFL

.

I don’t know what you’re referring to about busybee01. The point stands. They don’t dismantle their servers, they remediate and repair them to keep them running as smoothly as possible.

This is pretty standard across the industry.

See post 133.

.

 

[colfax_m]

I have no doubt Russia tried, but several cyber experts have said the speed of the download could not have been accomplished via an internet connection. That indicated an inside job.

Absolutely not. These “experts” made fundamental mistakes in their analysis by assuming the transfer they were evaluating was a transfer from the DNC servers to Romania. This is littered with unfounded assumptions, not the least of which is evidence that the data was transferred off the servers over a week before the transfer they were analyzing.

The US government has access to data logs showing when and where the data went from the DNC servers.

Really, how did they get the logs when the DNC refused access to their servers?

.

For starters the DNC gave them all their forensic data which includes their logs, but more importantly, the ISPs keep logs as well.

You don’t think that analyzing the logs requires the physical hardware, do you? The evidence is data which can be copied and distributed that way.

 

[colfax_m]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

They wipe the servers and restore them to previous backup versions. There’s no reason to destroy the hardware.

Wow, no one said anything about destroying the hardware, You might want to tell that little guy in your head to STFU. ROFL

.

I don’t know what you’re referring to about busybee01. The point stands. They don’t dismantle their servers, they remediate and repair them to keep them running as smoothly as possible.

This is pretty standard across the industry.

See post 133.

.

Okay. And? To remediate, you’d have to take the servers offline for a while. But the hardware is put back up when it’s done.

 

[OKTexas]

I have no doubt Russia tried, but several cyber experts have said the speed of the download could not have been accomplished via an internet connection. That indicated an inside job.

Absolutely not. These “experts” made fundamental mistakes in their analysis by assuming the transfer they were evaluating was a transfer from the DNC servers to Romania. This is littered with unfounded assumptions, not the least of which is evidence that the data was transferred off the servers over a week before the transfer they were analyzing.

The US government has access to data logs showing when and where the data went from the DNC servers.

Really, how did they get the logs when the DNC refused access to their servers?

.

For starters the DNC gave them all their forensic data which includes their logs, but more importantly, the ISPs keep logs as well.

You don’t think that analyzing the logs requires the physical hardware, do you? The evidence is data which can be copied and distributed that way.

So you're assuming that happened, where's your evidence?

.

 

[colfax_m]

I have no doubt Russia tried, but several cyber experts have said the speed of the download could not have been accomplished via an internet connection. That indicated an inside job.

Absolutely not. These “experts” made fundamental mistakes in their analysis by assuming the transfer they were evaluating was a transfer from the DNC servers to Romania. This is littered with unfounded assumptions, not the least of which is evidence that the data was transferred off the servers over a week before the transfer they were analyzing.

The US government has access to data logs showing when and where the data went from the DNC servers.

Really, how did they get the logs when the DNC refused access to their servers?

.

For starters the DNC gave them all their forensic data which includes their logs, but more importantly, the ISPs keep logs as well.

You don’t think that analyzing the logs requires the physical hardware, do you? The evidence is data which can be copied and distributed that way.

So you're assuming that happened, where's your evidence?

.

It’s noted in the Mueller report. Are you assuming it didn’t happen?

 

[OKTexas]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

They wipe the servers and restore them to previous backup versions. There’s no reason to destroy the hardware.

Wow, no one said anything about destroying the hardware, You might want to tell that little guy in your head to STFU. ROFL

.

I don’t know what you’re referring to about busybee01. The point stands. They don’t dismantle their servers, they remediate and repair them to keep them running as smoothly as possible.

This is pretty standard across the industry.

See post 133.

.

Okay. And? To remediate, you’d have to take the servers offline for a while. But the hardware is put back up when it’s done.

No one has said otherwise, I have yet to see any evidence they were ever taken offline. If they were, why wouldn't they allow access to the FBI for forensic analysis?

.

 

[colfax_m]

Ha! Obama’s intelligence agencies were criticized for that reason after they put out intelligence indicating Russia was behind DNC hacks and election interference because those things were not true.
Four years later and numerous intelligence reports from Republicans and Democrats verifying that result and the Dem faithful still can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong

Fascinating. Show me the bipartisan intelligence report showing that Russia wasn’t behind the DNC attack.

You won’t because it doesn’t exist.

Show what federal agency examined the DNC servers and came to that conclusion.

.

First show me why that was necessary to reach that conclusion.

Independent eyes, the DNC had a vested interest in making the claim.

.

Crowdstrike doesn’t have a vested interest. And the US law enforcement and intelligence community provided plenty of independent eyes to the hack.

So I still haven’t heard why it was necessary to have the physical hardware to reach a conclusion.

You don't necessarily have to look at the actual server to determine if it was hacked. Trump supporters have to stick to their story even if it is not true. Network managers look for anomalies in data traffic, signatures and other abnormalities to determine if their networks might be under attack by hackers. They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

They do not physically take down servers unless they believe their networks have been hacked.

So you're saying that's why the DNC didn't take down their servers and give them to the FBI, because they didn't believe they were hacked? Got it. LMAO

.

No. They didn’t take down their servers to give to the FBI because they were in the middle of a huge election and destroying their infrastructure for no reason is a dumb idea.

Excuses, excuses. LMAO

.

Nope. That’s literally how it’s done industry wide. It makes no sense to dismantle your infrastructure when the evidence isn’t hardware, it’s data.

Are you calling busybee01 a liar? He says they take them down if they know they've been hacked. You commies need to get your stories straight.

.

They wipe the servers and restore them to previous backup versions. There’s no reason to destroy the hardware.

Wow, no one said anything about destroying the hardware, You might want to tell that little guy in your head to STFU. ROFL

.

I don’t know what you’re referring to about busybee01. The point stands. They don’t dismantle their servers, they remediate and repair them to keep them running as smoothly as possible.

This is pretty standard across the industry.

See post 133.

.

Okay. And? To remediate, you’d have to take the servers offline for a while. But the hardware is put back up when it’s done.

No one has said otherwise, I have yet to see any evidence they were ever taken offline. If they were, why wouldn't they allow access to the FBI for forensic analysis?

.

Because to take them offline and giving them to the FBI would mean a much greater downtime than just rolling them back to a prior state.

This is pretty industry standard.

 

[OKTexas]

I have no doubt Russia tried, but several cyber experts have said the speed of the download could not have been accomplished via an internet connection. That indicated an inside job.

Absolutely not. These “experts” made fundamental mistakes in their analysis by assuming the transfer they were evaluating was a transfer from the DNC servers to Romania. This is littered with unfounded assumptions, not the least of which is evidence that the data was transferred off the servers over a week before the transfer they were analyzing.

The US government has access to data logs showing when and where the data went from the DNC servers.

Really, how did they get the logs when the DNC refused access to their servers?

.

For starters the DNC gave them all their forensic data which includes their logs, but more importantly, the ISPs keep logs as well.

You don’t think that analyzing the logs requires the physical hardware, do you? The evidence is data which can be copied and distributed that way.

So you're assuming that happened, where's your evidence?

.

It’s noted in the Mueller report. Are you assuming it didn’t happen?

Really, the FBI said they trusted the work of Crowdstrike and weren't allowed to confirm their results because they were denied access.

.