Dropping charges on the Russians

[Spartacus]

This thread is almost like people with no science or health background becoming experts on a virus…

[Jezcoe]

@Spartacus

This thread is almost like people with no science or health background becoming experts on a virus…

I am only going off of the Congressional testimony of the Crowdstrike transcript that no one seems to have read.

[Snow96]

@LucyLou

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

It kind of is.

@Snow96

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?

Same concept. If they are saying it’s a snapshot of when it occured – Do they have that exact moment, day, week on back up? Why not just turn that back up over to the FBI? Because if they don’t have a back up of that hour/day/week, then they are NOT getting a snapshot of when the breach occured.

[GWH]

Hah, Shawn Henry. May as well be Peter Strzok.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

It is shown that

An estimation is not evidence.

[WuWei]

@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?

How do you know it is an image of that server?

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

They were in the middle of an election.

The image was enough.

[zantax]

@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.

Does this sound like they were give server clones to you?

from Full text: James Comey testimony transcript on Trump and Russia - POLITICO

BURR: And the FBI in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate, did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked, or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the day that that they had collected?

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, and I believe the D triple C, but I’m sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high class entity, that had done the work but we didn’t get direct access.

BURR: But no content.

COMEY: Correct.

BURR: Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counter-intelligence standpoint?

COMEY: It is but what was briefed to me by the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Well from the Crowdstrike transcript that no one read.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

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

According to whom?

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

The image of the server is direct evidence.

No, it is an alleged copy of evidence.

[zantax]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

The image of the server is direct evidence.

No, it is an alleged copy of evidence.

As far as I can tell they never got a full clone of the servers to begin with.

[PurpnGold]

@Jezcoe

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.

Groundhogs Day

[Forcefield]

History will not be kind to William Barr.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

I am only going off of the Congressional testimony of the Crowdstrike transcript that no one seems to have read.

Taking their word that they are telling the truth?

[WuWei]

@Forcefield

History will not be kind to William Barr.

[GWH]

■■■■ , he’s leading us out of the wilderness like Moses.

[Forcefield]

@GWH

■■■■ , he’s leading us out of the wilderness like Moses.

[WuWei]

@GWH

■■■■ , he’s leading us out of the wilderness like Moses.

[Roxiebelle]

Apparently some missed the testimony directly from the company that examined the server. There is absolutely no unequivocal evidence that Russia hacked anything at all.