Grenell Makes Shocking Announcement

[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?

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

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

 

[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?

.

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.

I don't know how pretty the industry standard is, but there is no reason the FBI couldn't have done their analysis on site.

.

 

[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.

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

.

 

[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?

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

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

.

Link to what exactly?

 

[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.

I don't know how pretty the industry standard is, but there is no reason the FBI couldn't have done their analysis on site.

.

Because it would have been disruptive to the operations of the DNC. Which, as stated earlier, was at an extremely critical time.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

.

Correct
It won't matter to him.

 

[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.

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

.

Link to what exactly?

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

Got to go, but I'll be back.

.

 

[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?

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

.

Correct
It won't matter to him.

Bubble boy is back ready to ignore any contradictory information.

 

[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?

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

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

.

Link to what exactly?

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

Got to go, but I'll be back.

.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

Mueller report sheds new light on how the Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign | TechCrunch

The Mueller report contains new information about how the Russian government hacked documents and emails from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and

techcrunch.com

FBI Got Everything It Asked for in DNC Investigation, Refuting ‘Missing Server’ Myth

New transcripts released by the House intelligence committee shed light on Russia’s interference in 2016 election.

www.defenseone.com

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

 

[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.

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

.

Link to what exactly?

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

Got to go, but I'll be back.

.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

Mueller report sheds new light on how the Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign | TechCrunch

The Mueller report contains new information about how the Russian government hacked documents and emails from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and

techcrunch.com

FBI Got Everything It Asked for in DNC Investigation, Refuting ‘Missing Server’ Myth

New transcripts released by the House intelligence committee shed light on Russia’s interference in 2016 election.

www.defenseone.com

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

So the recurring theme is Russia was supposedly in the DNC systems long before Trump announced, and the access was gained through old fashioned physhing scams. The same applies to the Podesta emails. Also it appears the DNC finally gave the FBI some information and then the assumption was made that the DNC gave the FBI everything they asked for, but I saw zero proof of that.

.

 

[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?

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

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

.

Link to what exactly?

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

Got to go, but I'll be back.

.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

Mueller report sheds new light on how the Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign | TechCrunch

The Mueller report contains new information about how the Russian government hacked documents and emails from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and

techcrunch.com

FBI Got Everything It Asked for in DNC Investigation, Refuting ‘Missing Server’ Myth

New transcripts released by the House intelligence committee shed light on Russia’s interference in 2016 election.

www.defenseone.com

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

So the recurring theme is Russia was supposedly in the DNC systems long before Trump announced, and the access was gained through old fashioned physhing scams. The same applies to the Podesta emails. Also it appears the DNC finally gave the FBI some information and then the assumption was made that the DNC gave the FBI everything they asked for, but I saw zero proof of that.

.

The recurring theme is that the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC is extremely robust and does not rely on just one source, but numerous methods.

 

[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.

.

Yes, and the reason they were “denied access” only applies to having physical access to their hardware, which is both disruptive to the operations of the DNC at a critical time in the election and of minimal benefit to the FBI.

The FBI does say they trust Crowdstrike because they’ve worked with them before and because they’re well respected in the field.

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

.

Link to what exactly?

But Crowdstrike was very far from the only source of information used to attribute the source of the hack.

Got to go, but I'll be back.

.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

Mueller report sheds new light on how the Russians hacked the DNC and the Clinton campaign | TechCrunch

The Mueller report contains new information about how the Russian government hacked documents and emails from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and

techcrunch.com

FBI Got Everything It Asked for in DNC Investigation, Refuting ‘Missing Server’ Myth

New transcripts released by the House intelligence committee shed light on Russia’s interference in 2016 election.

www.defenseone.com

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

So the recurring theme is Russia was supposedly in the DNC systems long before Trump announced, and the access was gained through old fashioned physhing scams. The same applies to the Podesta emails. Also it appears the DNC finally gave the FBI some information and then the assumption was made that the DNC gave the FBI everything they asked for, but I saw zero proof of that.

.

The recurring theme is that the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC is extremely robust and does not rely on just one source, but numerous methods.

And they weren't doing it to support Trump, since they were doing it long before he announced.

.

 

[zaangalewa]

Richard Grenell is about the closest thing the United States has to James Bond. The greatest part is that he’s not a fictional character but a real life patriot. Not only did he serve as U.S. Ambassador to Germany ...

"Ambassador" is a very big word in this context. He was more an instititutionalized enemy of Germany in the name of the US-American government. Better no ambassador instead of such an ambassador. We are able to ruin the relationship to the USA on our own, if we like to do so. We don't need help to do so from such an amateur.

 

[busybee01]

Obama has a 60%+ approval rating now. Clearly voters are saying that Obama's Presidency was pretty good compared to Trump. Obamacare is more popular than Trump.

LMAO yes Obama is so popular the American people chose to abandon him and his dumb ass policies handing the White House, House, and Senate to Republicans that's how popular Obama is.

Obama's approvals are in the 60s now versus Trump who is in the 40s. Clearly Americans believe Obama's Presidency has been better than Trump's.

Are you a blithering idiot or something? Obama told the American people his legacy was on the line in 2016 yet they rejected him and his policies. Do you hear the American people demanding Obamacare?

You are the blithering idiot. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both unpopular. 25% of voters voted against the other candidate. Trump won this vote. This 25% was not voting for anyone. Obamacare is more popular than Trump. That is one of the reasons the Republicans lost the House. You actually had Republican incumbents saying they did not try to get rid of Obamacare.

 

[busybee01]

Richard Grenell is about the closest thing the United States has to James Bond. The greatest part is that he’s not a fictional character but a real life patriot. Not only did he serve as U.S. Ambassador to Germany, he put on a second hat as acting Director of National Intelligence, where he acted like he had quite a bit of intelligence. The shocking announcement he made at the Republican Convention Wednesday night is the kind that makes E.F. Hutton listen.

Richard Grenell didn’t pull any punches and used every moment of his time on stage to promote Donald Trump because what he already knows about the Democrats makes him sick to his stomach. “I saw the Democrats’ entire case for Russian collusion and what I saw made me sick to my stomach. The Obama-Biden administration secretly launched a surveillance operation on the Trump campaign and silenced the many brave intelligence officials who spoke up against it.”


Not only that, Grenell informs, Deep State Democrats in Barack Obama’s Federal Bureau of Instigation and Department of Injustice “presented bogus information as facts. They lied to judges. Then they classified anything that undermined their case.” That’s just for starters. “After Donald Trump won the election, when they should have continued the American tradition of helping the president-elect transition into the White House, they tried instead to undercut him even more.”

Joe Biden personally “asked intelligence officials to uncover the hidden information on President Trump’s incoming national security advisor three weeks before the Inauguration.” As Grenell snipes, “that’s the Democrats. Between surveillance, classifications, leaks, and puppet candidates, they never want the American people to know who’s actually calling the shots.” Then there’s President Donald Trump.

One moment, please...

newshourfirst.com

BJ's Pull quote:

Richard Grenell is firmly convinced that the decision on who to vote for as president isn’t even close to a hard choice. With President Donald Trump, he declares, “you always know exactly who is in charge because the answer is you. You’re in charge. Not lobbyists. Not special interests. Not warmongers, or China sympathizers, or globalization fanatics.”

Richard Grenell is a Repubican with no experience at running one large government agency, much less the 17 which now report to him. What he says or thinks is irrelevant, as it is with all Trump appointees. They'll say what they're told to say or they're out of work.

Poor little canadian commie, Grenell is no longer DNI. Do try to keep up. LMAO

.

The DNI has been politicized by Donald Trump. Despite this, our intelligence agencies agree Russia is trying to swing the election to Trump by using fake information on Biden. The same nonsense that Grenell tried to pass as fact is being spread by the current DNI who is a political hack.

So now contemporary documents are now nonsense? Who would have thunk. LMAO

.

The fact is that the parts on Iran and China was placed in the document to pacify Trump. They clearly stated Russia was interfering in our elections by trying to put out misinformation on Biden.

 

[busybee01]

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.

RCP has columnists on both sides. Just because it appears on RCP does not give it credibility.

Yet you haven't provided a credible link to the contrary, go figure. You commies are funny.

.

Maybe you need to look at the columns. They are not written specifically for RCP.

 

[busybee01]

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

.

They don't have to give them the servers. The physical servers tell them nothing. What was turned over were the signatures of the attacks. The signatures match those that Russian hackers have used.

 

[busybee01]

Obama has a 60%+ approval rating now. Clearly voters are saying that Obama's Presidency was pretty good compared to Trump. Obamacare is more popular than Trump.

LMAO yes Obama is so popular the American people chose to abandon him and his dumb ass policies handing the White House, House, and Senate to Republicans that's how popular Obama is.

Obama's approvals are in the 60s now versus Trump who is in the 40s. Clearly Americans believe Obama's Presidency has been better than Trump's.

Nah, they're just happy he's gone and can't fuck up anything else. Couldn't believe the way the mooch claimed to being oppressed while speaking to the DNC, from her 15 million dollar ocean side mansion in one of the whitest communities in the country. Poor baby.

.

They are unhappy he is gone. Obama looks good now that they are comparing Obama and Trump. Bush left office underwater in his approvals and he is in the upper 50s. Even Bush's Presidency looks good compared to Trump.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama has a 60%+ approval rating now. Clearly voters are saying that Obama's Presidency was pretty good compared to Trump. Obamacare is more popular than Trump.

LMAO yes Obama is so popular the American people chose to abandon him and his dumb ass policies handing the White House, House, and Senate to Republicans that's how popular Obama is.

Obama's approvals are in the 60s now versus Trump who is in the 40s. Clearly Americans believe Obama's Presidency has been better than Trump's.

Are you a blithering idiot or something? Obama told the American people his legacy was on the line in 2016 yet they rejected him and his policies. Do you hear the American people demanding Obamacare?

You are the blithering idiot. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both unpopular. 25% of voters voted against the other candidate. Trump won this vote. This 25% was not voting for anyone. Obamacare is more popular than Trump. That is one of the reasons the Republicans lost the House. You actually had Republican incumbents saying they did not try to get rid of Obamacare.

Look who's talking your candidate is Joe Biden

 

[busybee01]

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.

.

Bullshit you lying ;little weasel