It only makes sens when the quotes are taken out of context, that one thinks that Crowdstrike was the only company to look at it, and that there was only one group doing it.
Ignore all of that then yes they have no idea.
3 Likes
Which person that looked at it provided actual evidence?
What have they done to safeguard our elections?
Haven’t heard a peep from pelosi, biden, obama, schumer… about the chinese openly threatening to take on gop members who proposed legislation against them.
Your wailing rings untrue.
1 Like
Did you actually read the transcript?
If one read it, then they would not come back and say that they were testifying that they had no “actual” evidence that it was the Russians.
1 Like
Lol. They couldn’t even say for sure the data ever left, let alone have concrete evidence the Russians did it.
So you didn’t read the transcript.
Cool.
1 Like
Oh and Intel agencies routinely use other countries hacking tools to deflect blame to someone else. So his saying they saw activity they usually see from Russians means diddly.
They can’t provide the defense of the people information they need to defend themselves. The case under those circumstances won’t go anywhere and will need to be dismissed. It’s called a Kangaroo Court when you don’t provode the evidence to the other side and take them to court.
Russia didn’t hack the election.
3 Likes
Can it be done accourding to how our justice system works? You know when the defence of the people charged ask for the documents to either show the charges are going to be convictable or show their innocense? If that can’t be done (you know, they won’t release the documents to the defense), then the only choice is to drop the charges. A judge would throw it out of his courtroom so fast it would make your head spin.
There was evidence.
There isn’t a way to realistically prosecute them.
Barr didn’t do a bad thing here.
The people who think that it was dropped because there was no evidence are just simply wrong.
Still waiting for your link to said evidence.
1 Like
2 Likes
The server was NEVER in the hands of anyone but Crowdstrike. The only data others looked at is the data that Crowdstrike supplies. No independent confirmation allowed. Here is what we found, look at it, see what we see? Can we have the server please for our own sluthing/analyasis. No you may not, you can only do off this single companies data they are providing.
What evidence?
An estimation is not evidence.
Against the companies charged? There was some public evidence, but a lot that the government says they won’t release because it gives away spying things that would compromise national security. If they can’t release other information they have, that may or may not prove guilt, then it must be released to the defence for preperation for trial. Won’t happen, judge would throw it out fast.
Not to mention Comey’s buddy is president of CrowdStrike. They could cough up any damn thing he or mueller needed them to just like Peter Strzok.
2 Likes
As I said. It is in the transcript.
It is shown that there were two separate groups that hacked the DNC. Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. Both are Russian Intelligence. Cozy Bear got into the DNC in June 2015. Fancy Bear moved from the DCCC to the DNC in early Aprli 2016. The hack was realized later in April after some comically bad miscommunication between the FBI and the contractor who tended to the servers.
So the part where they say that they don’t have any “evidence” that the information was exfiltrated was in reference to Fancy Bear who got in later. They saw that the information was staged to be exfiltrated but the evidence that it was stolen was not there, either because they hadn’t done it yet or they had covered their tracks. Probably the latter.
Cozy Bear was there for nearly a year certainly got a ton of information.
But lets go with the story that the transcript show that they had no idea that it was the Russians.
Sounds better I guess.
4 Likes
