Dropping charges on the Russians

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

@tnt

What the actual ■■■■■

So ramp up the troll farm! The US doesn’t care if the Russian’s interfere…

Shameful. Barr is the worst. Behind trump of course.

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.

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.

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.

It was “shown”? When?

[Jezcoe]

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

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.

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.

Yes. They got an image of the server at the time the server was hacked.

There is no need to have a look at the physical server, only the data that is on it.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

@tnt

What the actual ■■■■■

So ramp up the troll farm! The US doesn’t care if the Russian’s interfere…

Shameful. Barr is the worst. Behind trump of course.

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.

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.

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.

It was “shown”? When?

Yes or no.

Did you read the transcript?

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

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.

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.

Yes. They got an image of the server at the time the server was hacked.

There is no need to have a look at the physical server, only the data that is on it.

The FBI disagrees with you. As evidenced by their repeated requests for same.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.

[Snow96]

@Jezcoe

Yes. They got an image of the server at the time the server was hacked.

So tell me, how can you take an image of the time a server was hacked months or years later? SInce during that time between the alleged hack, and the image information is written to the server, and deleted?

[zantax]

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

[Jezcoe]

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

Yes. They got an image of the server at the time the server was hacked.

So tell me, how can you take an image of the time a server was hacked months or years later? SInce during that time between the alleged hack, and the image information is written to the server, and deleted?

An image of the server is a snapshot of a place in time.

Having the physical server, which is spread out over a cloud, is a lot less useful.

Why when looking at 1’s and 0’s does one need to look at the physical hardware?

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

[Guvnah]

@Jezcoe

It only makes sens when the quotes are taken out of context,

Woo HOO!

Libs sure know that!!

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

Not according the the FBI

[Snow96]

@Jezcoe

An image of the server is a snapshot of a place in time.

Snapshot of a place in time, taken at a later date.

It’s like me going down to my downtown district and taking a picture and saying something about the road. Modifications have been made and deleted over the years.

So again, how are they getting an exact snapshot of the time the alleged hack occured? How are they seing information that was there that could have been deleted at a later time? How are they not seing information that was added at a later time? How are they seing information that may have been delted and overwritten?

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

Not according the the FBI

Well from the Crowdstrike transcript that no one read.

MR. SWALWELL: Can you describe how disruptive it would be to turnover custody of your Servers to the FBI for a client like that or any other client in asituation like this?
MR.HENRY:How disruptive it would be to turn over?
MR’SWALWELL:Well, l guess my question is , when you hear in the public realm, you know, why didn’t the DNC just turn over their seryers to the FBI ‘and you’re telling us that images, according to the FBl, were sufficient, just for argument’s sake, what does turning over the servers to the FBI mean practically to an organization that is still functioning and relying upon those servers?
MR. HENRY: When I hear somebody say "turning over the seruers,"based on my experience, it’s not turning over the actual server; it’s an image of the server.
\MR. SWALWELL: okay. And, in your experience, comparing this case to other clients that you’ve had or in your work at the FBl, you believe that the images were sufficient for the FBI to understand what had occurred?
MR. HENRY: I believe that the FBI got everything that they asked for that related to the DNC from us. Everything that we had access to related to imagesand servers, when they asked for it, they got it’

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

Not according the the FBI

Well from the Crowdstrike transcript that no one read.

MR. SWALWELL: Can you describe how disruptive it would be to turnover custody of your Servers to the FBI for a client like that or any other client in asituation like this?
MR.HENRY:How disruptive it would be to turn over?
MR’SWALWELL:Well, l guess my question is , when you hear in the public realm, you know, why didn’t the DNC just turn over their seryers to the FBI ‘and you’re telling us that images, according to the FBl, were sufficient, just for argument’s sake, what does turning over the servers to the FBI mean practically to an organization that is still functioning and relying upon those servers?
MR. HENRY: When I hear somebody say "turning over the seruers,"based on my experience, it’s not turning over the actual server; it’s an image of the server.
\MR. SWALWELL: okay. And, in your experience, comparing this case to other clients that you’ve had or in your work at the FBl, you believe that the images were sufficient for the FBI to understand what had occurred?
MR. HENRY: I believe that the FBI got everything that they asked for that related to the DNC from us. Everything that we had access to related to imagesand servers, when they asked for it, they got it’

Mind explaining just how it would be more disruptive for the FBI to clone their servers than to let crowdstrike do it? And no, they didn’t get everything they asked for unless you are calling Comey a liar now.

[Jezcoe]

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

An image of the server is a snapshot of a place in time.

Snapshot of a place in time, taken at a later date.

It’s like me going down to my downtown district and taking a picture and saying something about the road. Modifications have been made and deleted over the years.

So again, how are they getting an exact snapshot of the time the alleged hack occured? How are they seing information that was there that could have been deleted at a later time? How are they not seing information that was added at a later time? How are they seing information that may have been delted and overwritten?

They gave to the FBI the same image that they used to determine what happened.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

Not according the the FBI

Well from the Crowdstrike transcript that no one read.

MR. SWALWELL: Can you describe how disruptive it would be to turnover custody of your Servers to the FBI for a client like that or any other client in asituation like this?
MR.HENRY:How disruptive it would be to turn over?
MR’SWALWELL:Well, l guess my question is , when you hear in the public realm, you know, why didn’t the DNC just turn over their seryers to the FBI ‘and you’re telling us that images, according to the FBl, were sufficient, just for argument’s sake, what does turning over the servers to the FBI mean practically to an organization that is still functioning and relying upon those servers?
MR. HENRY: When I hear somebody say "turning over the seruers,"based on my experience, it’s not turning over the actual server; it’s an image of the server.
\MR. SWALWELL: okay. And, in your experience, comparing this case to other clients that you’ve had or in your work at the FBl, you believe that the images were sufficient for the FBI to understand what had occurred?
MR. HENRY: I believe that the FBI got everything that they asked for that related to the DNC from us. Everything that we had access to related to imagesand servers, when they asked for it, they got it’

Mind explaining just how it would be more disruptive for the FBI to clone their servers than to let crowdstrike do it?

Because by that time the mitigation efforts had begun.

Why give evidence of a crime scene after the cleanup instead of before?

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

Not according the the FBI

Well from the Crowdstrike transcript that no one read.

MR. SWALWELL: Can you describe how disruptive it would be to turnover custody of your Servers to the FBI for a client like that or any other client in asituation like this?
MR.HENRY:How disruptive it would be to turn over?
MR’SWALWELL:Well, l guess my question is , when you hear in the public realm, you know, why didn’t the DNC just turn over their seryers to the FBI ‘and you’re telling us that images, according to the FBl, were sufficient, just for argument’s sake, what does turning over the servers to the FBI mean practically to an organization that is still functioning and relying upon those servers?
MR. HENRY: When I hear somebody say "turning over the seruers,"based on my experience, it’s not turning over the actual server; it’s an image of the server.
\MR. SWALWELL: okay. And, in your experience, comparing this case to other clients that you’ve had or in your work at the FBl, you believe that the images were sufficient for the FBI to understand what had occurred?
MR. HENRY: I believe that the FBI got everything that they asked for that related to the DNC from us. Everything that we had access to related to imagesand servers, when they asked for it, they got it’

Mind explaining just how it would be more disruptive for the FBI to clone their servers than to let crowdstrike do it?

Because by that time the mitigation efforts had begun.

Why give evidence of a crime scene after the cleanup instead of before?

Can’t even begin to decipher this. Are you seriously asking me why you would turn over direct evidence of a crime to law enforcement?

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Oh and lied about the FBI ever having requested it.

from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached.

But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

Not according the the FBI

Well from the Crowdstrike transcript that no one read.

MR. SWALWELL: Can you describe how disruptive it would be to turnover custody of your Servers to the FBI for a client like that or any other client in asituation like this?
MR.HENRY:How disruptive it would be to turn over?
MR’SWALWELL:Well, l guess my question is , when you hear in the public realm, you know, why didn’t the DNC just turn over their seryers to the FBI ‘and you’re telling us that images, according to the FBl, were sufficient, just for argument’s sake, what does turning over the servers to the FBI mean practically to an organization that is still functioning and relying upon those servers?
MR. HENRY: When I hear somebody say "turning over the seruers,"based on my experience, it’s not turning over the actual server; it’s an image of the server.
\MR. SWALWELL: okay. And, in your experience, comparing this case to other clients that you’ve had or in your work at the FBl, you believe that the images were sufficient for the FBI to understand what had occurred?
MR. HENRY: I believe that the FBI got everything that they asked for that related to the DNC from us. Everything that we had access to related to imagesand servers, when they asked for it, they got it’

Mind explaining just how it would be more disruptive for the FBI to clone their servers than to let crowdstrike do it?

Because by that time the mitigation efforts had begun.

Why give evidence of a crime scene after the cleanup instead of before?

Can’t even begin to decipher this. Are you seriously asking me why you would turn over direct evidence of a crime to law enforcement?

The image of the server is direct evidence.

[LucyLou]

@Snow96

@Jezcoe

An image of the server is a snapshot of a place in time.

Snapshot of a place in time, taken at a later date.

It’s like me going down to my downtown district and taking a picture and saying something about the road. Modifications have been made and deleted over the years.

So again, how are they getting an exact snapshot of the time the alleged hack occured? How are they seing information that was there that could have been deleted at a later time? How are they not seing information that was added at a later time? How are they seing information that may have been delted and overwritten?

Well, except that it’s not at all like you going somewhere and taking a photograph with a camera.

[Spartacus]

right click, open previous version…

[Spartacus]

Servers have special “things” that make them servers…