Joe diGenova: What To Expect From The Horowitz IG Report

[iceberg]

I love it when dicks like you think they know someone lied. how the fk do you know assange lied? come on brilliant fk tell us your credentials that allows you that kind of access?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

no you don't you fking liar!!! you know no such thing. you heard it, but the fk, you don't know it. no one ever looked at it.

Robert Mueller looked at it. US intelligence looked at it. Respected private security firms looked at it.

Why is it so hard to accept?

list those who got to look at the actual server please. not what was handed to them.

there's potential for a huge gap between these 2 steps you ignore in order to say all is fine here. i give NO ONE that benefit of doubt. NO ONE.

What is the potential gap. Explain please.

1. actual crime scene
2. what i tell you is the crime scene.

you either understand or you don't.

 

[colfax_m]

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me.

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

 

[Mac-7]

So if Durham gets the scoop from Adm. Rogers then the entire scam is outed.
So Horowitz' report isn't as critical as Durham's.
Here's hoping that some of the deep state "professionals" can tell the truth under oath.

Horowitz answers to the Deep State

Durham does not

 

[colfax_m]

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

no you don't you fking liar!!! you know no such thing. you heard it, but the fk, you don't know it. no one ever looked at it.

Robert Mueller looked at it. US intelligence looked at it. Respected private security firms looked at it.

Why is it so hard to accept?

list those who got to look at the actual server please. not what was handed to them.

there's potential for a huge gap between these 2 steps you ignore in order to say all is fine here. i give NO ONE that benefit of doubt. NO ONE.

What is the potential gap. Explain please.

1. actual crime scene
2. what i tell you is the crime scene.

you either understand or you don't.

Give me a plausible scenario where the fact that they didn't have access to the physical hardware makes any difference?

 

[jc456]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?

Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.

In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
redundancy

it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.

and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.

---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.

easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?

we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.

FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report

why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.

none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.

Assange is a liar and has plenty of motivation to lie since he's gotten in bed with the Russians who aren't exactly afraid of getting their hands dirty.

The evidence that Russia hacked the DNC comes from many, many sources and they all corroborate the same story. All anyone else has done is attempt to inject uncertainty into it. There's no actual evidence of any other method or culprit.

The Daily Caller (not a legitimate news source in my opinion) pushed this conspiracy theory, but that was years ago. It never went anywhere because the truth was far less interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...0b4170-93f2-11e7-b9bc-b2f7903bab0d_story.html

I love it when dicks like you think they know someone lied. how the fk do you know assange lied? come on brilliant fk tell us your credentials that allows you that kind of access?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

he does!! LOL. he's on here making claims as if he actually knows. wow. once a dick always a dick.

 

[jc456]

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
redundancy

it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.

and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.

---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.

easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?

we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.

FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report

why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.

none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.

Assange is a liar and has plenty of motivation to lie since he's gotten in bed with the Russians who aren't exactly afraid of getting their hands dirty.

The evidence that Russia hacked the DNC comes from many, many sources and they all corroborate the same story. All anyone else has done is attempt to inject uncertainty into it. There's no actual evidence of any other method or culprit.

The Daily Caller (not a legitimate news source in my opinion) pushed this conspiracy theory, but that was years ago. It never went anywhere because the truth was far less interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...0b4170-93f2-11e7-b9bc-b2f7903bab0d_story.html

I love it when dicks like you think they know someone lied. how the fk do you know assange lied? come on brilliant fk tell us your credentials that allows you that kind of access?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

 

[colfax_m]

Assange is a liar and has plenty of motivation to lie since he's gotten in bed with the Russians who aren't exactly afraid of getting their hands dirty.

The evidence that Russia hacked the DNC comes from many, many sources and they all corroborate the same story. All anyone else has done is attempt to inject uncertainty into it. There's no actual evidence of any other method or culprit.

The Daily Caller (not a legitimate news source in my opinion) pushed this conspiracy theory, but that was years ago. It never went anywhere because the truth was far less interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...0b4170-93f2-11e7-b9bc-b2f7903bab0d_story.html

I love it when dicks like you think they know someone lied. how the fk do you know assange lied? come on brilliant fk tell us your credentials that allows you that kind of access?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

I'm just surprised that after all these years, there's still hold outs that don't believe Russia hacked the DNC.

 

[iceberg]

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me.

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

not going to play what's more likely.

what's more likely is that if you're the victim of a crime you don't get to tell police what they get to investigate. please show me where this is common practice and maybe we can go on. til then this is just bluster and hype and guesswork on your part.

if the DNC didn't want the disruption, source that fact and show me they said that. your saying that is a likely reason simply won't cut it.

when you act strangely, you bring doubt upon yourself you're willing to look past. i'm sure if trump did this you'd not say "hey they just didn't want to be bothered...".

 

[iceberg]

I love it when dicks like you think they know someone lied. how the fk do you know assange lied? come on brilliant fk tell us your credentials that allows you that kind of access?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

I'm just surprised that after all these years, there's still hold outs that don't believe Russia hacked the DNC.

i'm surprised to believe after all these years people will take things on faith alone and not require proof.

 

[jc456]

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
redundancy

it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.

and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.

---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.

easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?

we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.

FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report

why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.

none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.

Assange is a liar and has plenty of motivation to lie since he's gotten in bed with the Russians who aren't exactly afraid of getting their hands dirty.

The evidence that Russia hacked the DNC comes from many, many sources and they all corroborate the same story. All anyone else has done is attempt to inject uncertainty into it. There's no actual evidence of any other method or culprit.

The Daily Caller (not a legitimate news source in my opinion) pushed this conspiracy theory, but that was years ago. It never went anywhere because the truth was far less interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...0b4170-93f2-11e7-b9bc-b2f7903bab0d_story.html

Maybe. but who was destroying hard drives? who was refusing to allow their "crime scene" to be investigated? who had illegal Pakistani brothers running the servers?

if we are going after character fine. let's go after all involved.

Since when is destroying hard drives so sinister? I've destroyed hard drives of my own a nmberof times.

The brothers were not "illegal" and they were not running the DNC servers. They were part of Schultz's Congressional staff.

Another conspiracy theory. The right wing pumps these theories out and by the time you've debunked it, they've hardly noticed because they've moved on to several other new conspiracies.

OK then we are simply back to...

why wasn't the fbi allowed to look at the servers directly?

as for the latest conspiracy theory... please the left trots these out as needed also. let's not pretend they don't.

I've given you a more than reasonable reason that they didn't look at the servers directly which you've chosen to ignore.

no you didn't. but you being a dick doesn't surprise me that you think you did. too fking funny.

 

[jc456]

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

no you don't you fking liar!!! you know no such thing. you heard it, but the fk, you don't know it. no one ever looked at it.

Robert Mueller looked at it. US intelligence looked at it. Respected private security firms looked at it.

Why is it so hard to accept?

list those who got to look at the actual server please. not what was handed to them.

there's potential for a huge gap between these 2 steps you ignore in order to say all is fine here. i give NO ONE that benefit of doubt. NO ONE.

What is the potential gap. Explain please.

1. actual crime scene
2. what i tell you is the crime scene.

you either understand or you don't.

Give me a plausible scenario where the fact that they didn't have access to the physical hardware makes any difference?

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

 

[colfax_m]

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me.

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

not going to play what's more likely.

what's more likely is that if you're the victim of a crime you don't get to tell police what they get to investigate. please show me where this is common practice and maybe we can go on. til then this is just bluster and hype and guesswork on your part.

if the DNC didn't want the disruption, source that fact and show me they said that. your saying that is a likely reason simply won't cut it.

when you act strangely, you being doubt upon yourself you're willing to look past. i'm sure if trump did this you'd not say "hey they just didn't want to be bothered...".

When it comes to hacking, sending forensic copies and not actual hardware is common practice.

In some versions of the servergate conspiracy theory now espoused by Trump, nothing less than physical possession of the hardware will suffice, because Crowdstrike, a respected security firm helmed by a former senior FBI agent, might be part of the deep state’s efforts to frame Putin. White scoffs at that notion, noting that National Republican Congressional Committee is one of Crowdstrike’s customers.

“I’ve done incident response for defense contractors and healthcare groups, this is all standard practice,” said White. “It’s completely defensible in terms of best practices and what was going on.”

When the computers belong to a cooperating victim, seizing the machines is pretty much out of the question, said James Harris, a former FBI cybercrime agent who worked on a 2009 breach at Google that’s been linked to the Chinese government.

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business.".

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

This isn't actually strange at all. Do you have anything to offer suggesting that it is unusual?

 

[jc456]

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me.

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

not going to play what's more likely.

what's more likely is that if you're the victim of a crime you don't get to tell police what they get to investigate. please show me where this is common practice and maybe we can go on. til then this is just bluster and hype and guesswork on your part.

if the DNC didn't want the disruption, source that fact and show me they said that. your saying that is a likely reason simply won't cut it.

when you act strangely, you being doubt upon yourself you're willing to look past. i'm sure if trump did this you'd not say "hey they just didn't want to be bothered...".

When it comes to hacking, sending forensic copies and not actual hardware is common practice.

In some versions of the servergate conspiracy theory now espoused by Trump, nothing less than physical possession of the hardware will suffice, because Crowdstrike, a respected security firm helmed by a former senior FBI agent, might be part of the deep state’s efforts to frame Putin. White scoffs at that notion, noting that National Republican Congressional Committee is one of Crowdstrike’s customers.

“I’ve done incident response for defense contractors and healthcare groups, this is all standard practice,” said White. “It’s completely defensible in terms of best practices and what was going on.”

When the computers belong to a cooperating victim, seizing the machines is pretty much out of the question, said James Harris, a former FBI cybercrime agent who worked on a 2009 breach at Google that’s been linked to the Chinese government.

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business.".

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

This isn't actually strange at all. Do you have anything to offer suggesting that it is unusual?

so explain what crowdstrike investigated?

 

[colfax_m]

Robert Mueller looked at it. US intelligence looked at it. Respected private security firms looked at it.

Why is it so hard to accept?

list those who got to look at the actual server please. not what was handed to them.

there's potential for a huge gap between these 2 steps you ignore in order to say all is fine here. i give NO ONE that benefit of doubt. NO ONE.

What is the potential gap. Explain please.

1. actual crime scene
2. what i tell you is the crime scene.

you either understand or you don't.

Give me a plausible scenario where the fact that they didn't have access to the physical hardware makes any difference?

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

 

[colfax_m]

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

I'm just surprised that after all these years, there's still hold outs that don't believe Russia hacked the DNC.

i'm surprised to believe after all these years people will take things on faith alone and not require proof.

You have to ignore mountains of evidence to refer to this as "faith alone".

 

[colfax_m]

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

not going to play what's more likely.

what's more likely is that if you're the victim of a crime you don't get to tell police what they get to investigate. please show me where this is common practice and maybe we can go on. til then this is just bluster and hype and guesswork on your part.

if the DNC didn't want the disruption, source that fact and show me they said that. your saying that is a likely reason simply won't cut it.

when you act strangely, you being doubt upon yourself you're willing to look past. i'm sure if trump did this you'd not say "hey they just didn't want to be bothered...".

When it comes to hacking, sending forensic copies and not actual hardware is common practice.

In some versions of the servergate conspiracy theory now espoused by Trump, nothing less than physical possession of the hardware will suffice, because Crowdstrike, a respected security firm helmed by a former senior FBI agent, might be part of the deep state’s efforts to frame Putin. White scoffs at that notion, noting that National Republican Congressional Committee is one of Crowdstrike’s customers.

“I’ve done incident response for defense contractors and healthcare groups, this is all standard practice,” said White. “It’s completely defensible in terms of best practices and what was going on.”

When the computers belong to a cooperating victim, seizing the machines is pretty much out of the question, said James Harris, a former FBI cybercrime agent who worked on a 2009 breach at Google that’s been linked to the Chinese government.

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business.".

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

This isn't actually strange at all. Do you have anything to offer suggesting that it is unusual?

so explain what crowdstrike investigated?

The case of jc456's missing head. Crowdstrike had no access to his ass so it was impossible to locate.

 

[jc456]

list those who got to look at the actual server please. not what was handed to them.

there's potential for a huge gap between these 2 steps you ignore in order to say all is fine here. i give NO ONE that benefit of doubt. NO ONE.

What is the potential gap. Explain please.

1. actual crime scene
2. what i tell you is the crime scene.

you either understand or you don't.

Give me a plausible scenario where the fact that they didn't have access to the physical hardware makes any difference?

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

 

[colfax_m]

What is the potential gap. Explain please.

1. actual crime scene
2. what i tell you is the crime scene.

you either understand or you don't.

Give me a plausible scenario where the fact that they didn't have access to the physical hardware makes any difference?

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

 

[jc456]

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

not going to play what's more likely.

what's more likely is that if you're the victim of a crime you don't get to tell police what they get to investigate. please show me where this is common practice and maybe we can go on. til then this is just bluster and hype and guesswork on your part.

if the DNC didn't want the disruption, source that fact and show me they said that. your saying that is a likely reason simply won't cut it.

when you act strangely, you being doubt upon yourself you're willing to look past. i'm sure if trump did this you'd not say "hey they just didn't want to be bothered...".

When it comes to hacking, sending forensic copies and not actual hardware is common practice.

In some versions of the servergate conspiracy theory now espoused by Trump, nothing less than physical possession of the hardware will suffice, because Crowdstrike, a respected security firm helmed by a former senior FBI agent, might be part of the deep state’s efforts to frame Putin. White scoffs at that notion, noting that National Republican Congressional Committee is one of Crowdstrike’s customers.

“I’ve done incident response for defense contractors and healthcare groups, this is all standard practice,” said White. “It’s completely defensible in terms of best practices and what was going on.”

When the computers belong to a cooperating victim, seizing the machines is pretty much out of the question, said James Harris, a former FBI cybercrime agent who worked on a 2009 breach at Google that’s been linked to the Chinese government.

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business.".

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

This isn't actually strange at all. Do you have anything to offer suggesting that it is unusual?

so explain what crowdstrike investigated?

The case of jc456's missing head. Crowdstrike had no access to his ass so it was impossible to locate.

when I know I won the argument.

 

[jc456]

1. actual crime scene
2. what i tell you is the crime scene.

you either understand or you don't.

Give me a plausible scenario where the fact that they didn't have access to the physical hardware makes any difference?

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.