Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House (2 Viewers)

[Booker]

Not really that shocking to anyone paying attention the last five years. The only question was whether Russia was working with the campaign, which the Mueller investigation was unable to confirm, but it was obvious Russia was working in Trump's interest.

And no doubt Putin feels he got his money's worth, just for January 6 alone. The elevation of Donald Trump was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country.

The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.

There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.

There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.

“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.

This would help bring about Russia’s favoured “theoretical political scenario”. A Trump win “will definitely lead to the destabilisation of the US’s sociopolitical system” and see hidden discontent burst into the open, it predicts.

Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House

Exclusive: Documents suggest Russia launched secret multi-agency effort to interfere in US democracy

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Isn’t it ironic that your person talks about an echo chamber when you seem to have the most restrictive sources in the entire site? You almost exclusively post from about 4-5 different people. Who all, coincidentally I‘m sure (that’s sarcasm), have an axe to grind with mainstream media and specifically anyone ever involved with the Clintons.

It’s hard to take this seriously, IMO.

 

[SaintForLife]

Isn’t it ironic that your person talks about an echo chamber when you seem to have the most restrictive sources in the entire site? You almost exclusively post from about 4-5 different people. Who all, coincidentally I‘m sure (that’s sarcasm), have an axe to grind with mainstream media and specifically anyone ever involved with the Clintons.

It’s hard to take this seriously, IMO.

I knew the axe to grind comment was coming. Yet again you won't get into any specific details which is telling that you can't refute it.

Are you surprised that the people in the media(the vast majority) who pushed all the Russia BS aren't covering the most recent developments besides some weak spin attempts you posted earlier?

Here is a New York Times reporter. Is he in your approved list of reporters or does he have an axe to grind too?



Do you have any comment about how Clinton's lawyers hands are all over GPS, Steele, CrowdStrike?

What do you think about the guy from CrowdStrike admitting under oath that they didn't have evidence that Russia exfiltrated anything from the DNC? That's a pretty big detail that the media has ignored.

 

[samiam5211]

I knew the axe to grind comment was coming. Yet again you won't get into any specific details which is telling that you can't refute it.

Are you surprised that the people in the media(the vast majority) who pushed all the Russia BS aren't covering the most recent developments besides some weak spin attempts you posted earlier?

Here is a New York Times reporter. Is he in your approved list of reporters or does he have an axe to grind too?



Do you have any comment about how Clinton's lawyers hands are all over GPS, Steele, CrowdStrike?

What do you think about the guy from CrowdStrike admitting under oath that they didn't have evidence that Russia exfiltrated anything from the DNC? That's a pretty big detail that the media has ignored.

Wait...

Do you think this raid is about cracking down on those responsible for the Steele dossier, is that what you really think? Is this raid the Durham probe in action? Is that what you think?

 

[MT15]

SFL: where does it say that Christopher Steele was working for Deripaska? I don’t see that anywhere in the linked material.

Here’s what I think: NY Times reporters don’t have any sort of automatic credibility from me. I don’t know, never heard of this guy, so I checked his tweet and his link. I didn’t see Steele’s name. I have no idea what he is on about.

I think you tend to look for conspiracies everywhere, but only for the side you don’t like. You’ll let anything slide for the other side. Just because a lawyer was hired by a Clinton at one time doesn’t make them unreliable or bad people. They don’t work “undercover” for the Clinton’s forever more.

I think the people you follow tend to be extremely partisan, and you like what they say. I know for a fact that several of them will go totally blind to anything funny on one side, and distort anything they can to make the other side look bad. A couple of them have actually changed sides in order to make more money. That’s not the type of person I tend to rely on for anything other than amusement.

I don’t care all that much about these arcane “revelations”. I tend to not believe in conspiracy theories as a general rule.

I think Deripaska is probably a very bad man, who is known to have employed Manafort to influence elections illegally in other countries. It seems that Deripaska sent Manafort to work for Trump, since Manafort showed up and volunteered to work without pay for the Trump campaign.

Deripaska seemingly still worked with Manafort while he (Manafort) was running the Trump campaign. There was improper communication by Manafort with Deripaska during the campaign.

But yeah, none of that makes any sense - it was the Clintons behind everything, lol.

 

[MT15]

And this is why it doesn’t pay to actually engage with SFL. He’s just not a serious poster.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL: where does it say that Christopher Steele was working for Deripaska? I don’t see that anywhere in the linked material.

Here’s what I think: NY Times reporters don’t have any sort of automatic credibility from me. I don’t know, never heard of this guy, so I checked his tweet and his link. I didn’t see Steele’s name. I have no idea what he is on about.

I think you tend to look for conspiracies everywhere, but only for the side you don’t like. You’ll let anything slide for the other side. Just because a lawyer was hired by a Clinton at one time doesn’t make them unreliable or bad people. They don’t work “undercover” for the Clinton’s forever more.

I think the people you follow tend to be extremely partisan, and you like what they say. I know for a fact that several of them will go totally blind to anything funny on one side, and distort anything they can to make the other side look bad. A couple of them have actually changed sides in order to make more money. That’s not the type of person I tend to rely on for anything other than amusement.

I don’t care all that much about these arcane “revelations”. I tend to not believe in conspiracy theories as a general rule.

I think Deripaska is probably a very bad man, who is known to have employed Manafort to influence elections illegally in other countries. It seems that Deripaska sent Manafort to work for Trump, since Manafort showed up and volunteered to work without pay for the Trump campaign.

Deripaska seemingly still worked with Manafort while he (Manafort) was running the Trump campaign. There was improper communication by Manafort with Deripaska during the campaign.

But yeah, none of that makes any sense - it was the Clintons behind everything, lol.

You still refuse to address any of the specific questions I asked you. I’m not surprised.

Here is a former NYT reporter stating the fact that you are still trying to deny.


It’s hilarious that you reference conspiracy theories when you fell for the biggest one in US history and you continue to deny it despite the collapse of the Russian collusion narrative.

Are you still refusing to comment on what I mentioned about Crowdstrike and Sussman?

 

[MT15]

I don’t care what Techno Fog has to say, for all you or I know that’s a parody account. What makes you think he knows anything about anything?

Why do you care what is mentioned in the Steele dossier? I thought it was all made up, according to you. So now you want to divine some sort of conspiracy theory out of what it says? It’s either made up and meaningless or not, make up your mind.

The stuff I mentioned in the bottom of my last post is a list of facts, all known. There nothing there that is a conspiracy. What do you say about it? Here it is again:

“I think Deripaska is probably a very bad man, who is known to have employed Manafort to influence elections illegally in other countries. It seems that Deripaska sent Manafort to work for Trump, since Manafort showed up and volunteered to work without pay for the Trump campaign.

Deripaska seemingly still worked with Manafort while he (Manafort) was running the Trump campaign. There was improper communication by Manafort with Deripaska during the campaign.”

This is pretty simple to see and understand. There’s no grand conspiracy. It was all done out in the open for the most part. Which makes your stance all the more maddening, since you are ignoring the obvious to go around listening to Techo Fog.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don’t care what Techno Fog has to say, for all you or I know that’s a parody account. What makes you think he knows anything about anything?

Why do you care what is mentioned in the Steele dossier? I thought it was all made up, according to you. So now you want to divine some sort of conspiracy theory out of what it says? It’s either made up and meaningless or not, make up your mind.

The stuff I mentioned in the bottom of my last post is a list of facts, all known. There nothing there that is a conspiracy. What do you say about it? Here it is again:

“I think Deripaska is probably a very bad man, who is known to have employed Manafort to influence elections illegally in other countries. It seems that Deripaska sent Manafort to work for Trump, since Manafort showed up and volunteered to work without pay for the Trump campaign.

Deripaska seemingly still worked with Manafort while he (Manafort) was running the Trump campaign. There was improper communication by Manafort with Deripaska during the campaign.”

This is pretty simple to see and understand. There’s no grand conspiracy. It was all done out in the open for the most part. Which makes your stance all the more maddening, since you are ignoring the obvious to go around listening to Techo Fog.

Techno Fog is once again linking actual court documents, but continue to ignore it which fits with your persona.

I’m still waiting for you to address how Crowdstrike had no proof that Russia exfiltrated anything from the DNC. Why won’t you even comment on that or that Sussman and the Democrats appear to have started and pushed the BS Russia collusion story. Are you scared to address it? Who has an axe to grind?

 

[MT15]

Lol. You’re not serious. Scared may describe you, though. You’re clinging to your conspiracy theories for all you’re worth.

 

[SaintForLife]

Lol. You’re not serious. Scared may describe you, though. You’re clinging to your conspiracy theories for all you’re worth.

you still won’t address anything specifically. Do you not realize how it makes your argument look like total BS? Why are you scared to respond to those specific details? Are the walls closing in on the Russia narrative? What do the CNN commentators have to say about it?

 

[MT15]

Once you address something then I will. When I do respond it will be something I have thought about for myself, and it won’t be a wall of tweets. I have already responded once to you with my own thoughts tonight, and got nothing of any substance back, just sneering and snark.

The things I posted are real and true, and you cannot even acknowledge what is true because you are so twisted up in your tweets that you read.

When I have read your source documents before, including one tonight, they don’t say what your “tweeters” say they do. I’ve brought that up to you before and you just don’t respond. So I’m not wasting any more time doing this with you. Especially since you don’t respond in good faith. You just put up more tweets and get hostile.

 

[SaintForLife]

Once you address something then I will. When I do respond it will be something I have thought about for myself, and it won’t be a wall of tweets. I have already responded once to you with my own thoughts tonight, and got nothing of any substance back, just sneering and snark.

The things I posted are real and true, and you cannot even acknowledge what is true because you are so twisted up in your tweets that you read.

When I have read your source documents before, including one tonight, they don’t say what your “tweeters” say they do. I’ve brought that up to you before and you just don’t respond. So I’m not wasting any more time doing this with you. Especially since you don’t respond in good faith. You just put up more tweets and get hostile.

I will continue to state that you won't even mention that CrowdStrike said they had no evidence that Russia exfiltrated anything from the DNC and that Clinton's lawyers have their hands all over starting and pushing then Russia collusion narrative.

I posted the screen shots of Crowdstrikes testimony, but you continue to ignore it for obvious reasons. Why do you act like I didn't post that?

What is it that you want me to address? I will specifically respond unlike you.

 

[RobF]

I will continue to state that you won't even mention that CrowdStrike said they had no evidence that Russia exfiltrated anything from the DNC and that Clinton's lawyers have their hands all over starting and pushing then Russia collusion narrative.

I posted the screen shots of Crowdstrikes testimony, but you continue to ignore it for obvious reasons. Why do you act like I didn't post that?

What is it that you want me to address? I will specifically respond unlike you.

Well, you could address the fact that the information presented by CrowdStrike is being misrepresented by your sources. For example:

In December 2017 testimony that was declassified only in May 2020, Henry admitted that his firm was akin to a bank examiner who believes the vault has been robbed – but has no proof of how.

So, that's false. Flat out, wrong. They absolutely have proof of the how. Analysis was carried out by CrowdStrike and multiple third-party analysts (like Fedelis) on the specific malware used. That's the how. And the nature of the malware - coding techniques, methods used, actions taken, related IP addresses - act as the equivalent of DNA evidence or fingerprints to indicate whose malware it is. That's part of the who.

If you want to go with the bank vault analogy, this would be the equivalent of things having being removed from the bank vault and the tools used to remove them being found in the bank vault with the fingerprints of the accused on them.

Your sources are relying on simply ignoring all of that, and instead noting that security analysts can't go back in time and capture network streams in real-time, and pretending that this is somehow not insignificant. Except it is. If you think of other crimes, fingerprints, DNA evidence, those are all admissible (hence, in part, 12 Russian nationals being indicted for this and other hacking). It's like, if you came back to your house, and found it's been broken into, but crime scene investigators find DNA evidence and fingerprints all over the place, you wouldn't expect someone to go, "Ah, but you didn't have those crime scene investigators actually in your house watching it being burgled at the time, did you? So could have been anyone!" That's not how any of that works.

And you can respond if you like, but if your response is going to be a crying-laughing emoji and/or the equivalent of "I'm just going to ignore all of that just like my sources," I'd suggest not.

 

[MT15]

SFL, I have posted what I wanted you to respond to 2x now. Don’t act like you don’t know what it is. Your sources are pure shirt. You shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Thanks, Rob, I just didn’t have the heart to do that yet again only to have him pretend it didn’t happen and that I never respond. He’s been playing this game since this site started, and I have responded to him with serious posts so many times, only to have him act like he just can’t see them.

It’s exhausting, which is part of the way disinformation wins the day. It’s a damn shame.

 

[SaintForLife]

Well, you could address the fact that the information presented by CrowdStrike is being misrepresented by your sources. For example:

So, that's false. Flat out, wrong. They absolutely have proof of the how. Analysis was carried out by CrowdStrike and multiple third-party analysts (like Fedelis) on the specific malware used. That's the how. And the nature of the malware - coding techniques, methods used, actions taken, related IP addresses - act as the equivalent of DNA evidence or fingerprints to indicate whose malware it is. That's part of the who.

CrowdStrike's CEO Shawn Henry testified under oath:

"We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated."

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say it conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

" There's not evidence that they[emails]were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but not evidence they were actually exfiltrated.

That doesn't sound like enough evidence to warrant all the attention and investigations that followed.

If you want to go with the bank vault analogy, this would be the equivalent of things having being removed from the bank vault and the tools used to remove them being found in the bank vault with the fingerprints of the accused on them.

Your sources are relying on simply ignoring all of that, and instead noting that security analysts can't go back in time and capture network streams in real-time, and pretending that this is somehow not insignificant. Except it is. If you think of other crimes, fingerprints, DNA evidence, those are all admissible (hence, in part, 12 Russian nationals being indicted for this and other hacking). It's like, if you came back to your house, and found it's been broken into, but crime scene investigators find DNA evidence and fingerprints all over the place, you wouldn't expect someone to go, "Ah, but you didn't have those crime scene investigators actually in your house watching it being burgled at the time, did you? So could have been anyone!" That's not how any of that works.

And you can respond if you like, but if your response is going to be a crying-laughing emoji and/or the equivalent of "I'm just going to ignore all of that just like my sources," I'd suggest not.

The indicators Henry and yourself referenced like certain malware can give clues, but isn't definitive.

From the article I posted earlier:

CrowdStrike's admission that it lacked evidence of exfiltration was not its first such embarrassment. Just months after it accused Russia of hacking the DNC in June 2016, CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation that Russia had hacked the Ukrainian military. The firm's debunked Ukrainian allegation was based on it claiming to have identified the same malware in Ukraine that it had found inside the DNC server.

Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking Report

CrowdStrike has revised, retracted statements it used to support allegations of Russian hacking during US presidential campaign; VOA reported company misrepresented data acquired from British think tank

www.voanews.com

Also, Sussman controlled what the FBI eventually got from the CrowdStrike report. The FBI only got what Sussman allowed them to see.

In 2017 congressional testimony, however, then-FBI Director James Comey recalled that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels," to access the DNC servers, but was denied. Asked why FBI access was rejected, Comey replied: "I don’t know for sure." According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, but "ultimately it was agreed to… [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."

And while Sussmann testified that Perkins Coie offered the FBI "access to everything that CrowdStrike was developing," FBI officials and federal prosecutors tell a different story.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, CrowdStrike delivered a draft report to the FBI on Aug. 31, 2016 that an unidentified FBI official described as "heavily redacted." James Trainor, then-assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division, told the committee that he was "frustrated" with the CrowdStrike report and "doubted its completeness" because "outside counsel" – i.e. Sussmann – "had reviewed it." According to Trainor, the DNC's cooperation was "moderate" overall and "slow and laborious in many respects." Trainor singled out the fact that Perkins Coie – and specifically, Sussmann – "scrubbed" the CrowdStrike information before it was delivered to the FBI, resulting in a "stripped-down version" that was "not optimal."

Mueller used qualifiers that showed he knew the evidence wasn't definitive.

A joint FBI-DHS report in December 2016 – the first time the US government attempted to present evidence that Russia hacked the DNC – describes the alleged Russian hacking effort as "likely leading to the exfiltration of information" from Democratic Party networks. (Emphasis added.)

April 2019: Still hedging, the Mueller Report says Russian intel "appears" to have exfiltrated DNC data.
Mueller Report, Page 40

The report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of April 2019, which found no Trump-Russia collusion, likewise stated that Russian intelligence "appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70 gigabytes of data" and "appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments" from Democratic Party servers. (Emphasis added.)

These qualifiers – "likely" and "appear" – signaled that U.S. intelligence officials lacked concrete evidence for their Russian hacking claims, a major evidentiary hole confirmed by Henry's buried testimony.

It's funny that you referenced those Russians Mueller indicted, when the case was eventually dropped once the Mueller prosecutors got to discovery. I wonder if they didn't have the evidence they claimed or it wasn't definitive. They ended up giving a BS excuse for dropping the case. Very embarrassing for Mueller.

U.S. prosecutors drop Mueller-era case against Russian firm

A federal judge approved U.S. prosecutors' request on Monday night to dismiss the criminal case against a Russian firm accused of funding a propaganda operation to meddle in the 2016 presidential election to sway it in President Donald Trump's favor.

www.reuters.com

 

[RobF]

CrowdStrike's CEO Shawn Henry testified under oath:

"We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated."

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say it conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

" There's not evidence that they[emails]were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but not evidence they were actually exfiltrated.

That doesn't sound like enough evidence to warrant all the attention and investigations that followed.

Again, this relies on simply ignoring all other evidence. To return to my earlier analogy, this would be like the police saying they couldn't investigate a theft from your house because you didn't have a witness there watching the items being removed... except there's DNA evidence, fingerprints on tools used to commit the crime, etc. That's plenty of evidence.

As we'll see, this is a theme here: you're being told, "Look at this!" with the intent that if you do just look at that, and don't look at anything else, it'll seem pretty compelling. But it doesn't work for anyone who looks at everything else.

The indicators Henry and yourself referenced like certain malware can give clues, but isn't definitive.

In this context, it's as definitive as DNA and fingerprints on the tools used to commit the crime left at the scene. The malware was there, it was stated the data was staged for exfiltration.

I don't know if you've read the full testimony - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf - or just the carefully selected extracts (and personally, if I was trying to give full context and not try to drive a particular distorted narrative, I'd have left "MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor" before the first extract and "When I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate. I want to provide the facts. So I said that we didn't have direct evidence. But we made a conclusion that the data left the network" after the last one), but Henry was asked whether someone could have faked it:

MR. CONAWAY: Okay. ls anybody out there good enough, I guess, for lack of a better phrase, to run a false-flag operation using the exact same tactics, techniques, and procedures that cozy Bear, Fancy Bear used that would have, in other words, caused us to look at the Russians and it was actually some other group doing it? ls anybody that good yet?
MR, HENRY: So, if you'll recall when I talked earlier about attribution, you look at data over the course of many intrusions over many years, and some of the infrastructure that we saw and some of the specific tactics and tools we've only seen associated with this particular actor, and it goes back many years.
MR. CONAWAY: Right.
MR. HENRY: So for somebody to do a false flag, as you've described it, it would've, I imagine, have been in play for many years. They would've had to have acquired Russian command-and-control servers. They would've had to somehow acquire tools and software, malicious code that had been used up until this point only by what we believe was the Russian Government.
MR. CONAWAY: Right
MR. HENRY. So I don't think that that is plausible
MR. CONAWAY: Right. But not totally impossible either, given the constant development of folks getting better and better
MR' HENRY: l think that - l don't think it's a viable option --
MR. CONAWAY: Ok
MR. HENRY: -- under the circumstances here.

Ultimately, what your sources are arguing is the equivalent of a defense that tries to suggest, in the absence of a video tape or witness watching the accused steal the items, that yes, the evidence is that they were there, and yes, the evidence is that they got the items ready to steal them, but that's essentially just circumstantial evidence and maybe they just subsequently changed their mind, left without stealing them, and someone else managed to sneak in, somehow leaving no trace whatsoever, and stole the items instead? So, not guilty?

I don't think it's going out on much of a limb to suggest such a defense isn't going to be successful.

From the article I posted earlier:

CrowdStrike's admission that it lacked evidence of exfiltration was not its first such embarrassment. Just months after it accused Russia of hacking the DNC in June 2016, CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation that Russia had hacked the Ukrainian military. The firm's debunked Ukrainian allegation was based on it claiming to have identified the same malware in Ukraine that it had found inside the DNC server.

Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking Report

CrowdStrike has revised, retracted statements it used to support allegations of Russian hacking during US presidential campaign; VOA reported company misrepresented data acquired from British think tank

www.voanews.com

So again, this is misrepresenting the article, as can be seen by, you know, clicking the link and reading the article. The specific accusation that Russia had hacked the Ukrainian military stands, as CrowdStrike are explicitly quoted stating in the article: "This update does not in any way impact the core premise of the report that the FANCY BEAR threat actor implanted malware into a D-30 targeting application developed by a Ukrainian military officer." The person writing the article you're quoting is deliberately conflating revisions of statements about the degree of impact that had with non-existent revisions and retractions about it happening.

And a person doing that is not a reliable source.

Also, Sussman controlled what the FBI eventually got from the CrowdStrike report. The FBI only got what Sussman allowed them to see.

In 2017 congressional testimony, however, then-FBI Director James Comey recalled that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels," to access the DNC servers, but was denied. Asked why FBI access was rejected, Comey replied: "I don’t know for sure." According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, but "ultimately it was agreed to… [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."

And while Sussmann testified that Perkins Coie offered the FBI "access to everything that CrowdStrike was developing," FBI officials and federal prosecutors tell a different story.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, CrowdStrike delivered a draft report to the FBI on Aug. 31, 2016 that an unidentified FBI official described as "heavily redacted." James Trainor, then-assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division, told the committee that he was "frustrated" with the CrowdStrike report and "doubted its completeness" because "outside counsel" – i.e. Sussmann – "had reviewed it." According to Trainor, the DNC's cooperation was "moderate" overall and "slow and laborious in many respects." Trainor singled out the fact that Perkins Coie – and specifically, Sussmann – "scrubbed" the CrowdStrike information before it was delivered to the FBI, resulting in a "stripped-down version" that was "not optimal."

Again, this appears to be similarly misleading:

Henry testified that:
MR. SCHlFF: And during those hundred or more contacts, did the FBI ever tell you that they needed the DNC server for their own forensic analysis?
MR. HENRY: They asked us to provide to them the images of the computers and the results of our collection. They did ask for that, and we shared that with them.
...
MR. SCHlFF: can you tell us a litile bit about the images that you provided? What are those, in technical terms? How much -- how similar are those images to the actual server itself?
MR. HENRY: So I want to be clear. And I think they're referenced in the report. When I say what we provided to them, there are some cases where we're providing the results of our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected. So we have -- we have software that we send in to the environment' lt collects artifacts, if you will, of what happened -- l mean, l'd equate it to shell casings or -- it's digital evidence - and pulls it back. lt's the remnants of code' And we will sort through all that, analyze that. we provided that information to the FBI. I believe that there are a couple of actual digital images, which would be a copy of a hard drive that we also provided to the FBI' And there were -- we're talking about, I don't know the exact number, but in excess of 10, I think, hard drives. Again, I believe you've got the documents, so I don't want to say anything that's inaccurate. But it's not -- we're not talking about one drive
MR. SCHlFF: And those copies of the drives allow you to create a duplicate virtual environment as the DNC server?
MR. HENRY: Yes.
MR. SCHIFF: And at any time did the FBI indicate to you that that was unsatisfactory in terms of their own investigation?
MR. HENRY: l'm not aware of them saying that.

Similarly, Comey didn't just say 'they'd share what they saw', he said they, 'ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system'.

FBI reviewed cybersecurity firm’s evidence in 2016 DNC election hack

Social media posts are wrongly claiming that the FBI failed to review evidence in the hack of the DNC’s computer network before concluding that Russia was responsible for the breach.

apnews.com

The accounts you're sharing with us are all basically relying on misdirection and people knowing very little about cyber-security investigations (not entirely unreasonable, but a bit frustrating to watch as someone who does know about cyber-security investigations).

Mueller used qualifiers that showed he knew the evidence wasn't definitive.

A joint FBI-DHS report in December 2016 – the first time the US government attempted to present evidence that Russia hacked the DNC – describes the alleged Russian hacking effort as "likely leading to the exfiltration of information" from Democratic Party networks. (Emphasis added.)

This one is just weird, because all the statements before the highlighted one are entirely definitive. E.g. it starts, "The GRU began stealing DCCC data shortly after it gained access to the network." In the full context - which is right there, just not highlighted! - that indicates that they do consider the evidence definitive as far as the access and theft goes.

It's funny that you referenced those Russians Mueller indicted, when the case was eventually dropped once the Mueller prosecutors got to discovery. I wonder if they didn't have the evidence they claimed or it wasn't definitive. They ended up giving a BS excuse for dropping the case. Very embarrassing for Mueller.

U.S. prosecutors drop Mueller-era case against Russian firm

A federal judge approved U.S. prosecutors' request on Monday night to dismiss the criminal case against a Russian firm accused of funding a propaganda operation to meddle in the 2016 presidential election to sway it in President Donald Trump's favor.

www.reuters.com

And this is similarly incorrect. As the article you've linked to states, they dismissed "the criminal case against a Russian firm," Concord. It doesn't say anything about the charges against those Russians. Because they weren't dismissed:

"Department officials denied that the decision to drop the charges was intended to dismantle Mr. Mueller’s work, noting that prosecutors are still pursuing charges against the 13 Russians and the Internet Research Agency." - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/concord-case-russian-interference.html​

​

When your sources rely that heavily on misdirection, misrepresentation, and misinformation, you have a problem with your sources.

 

[SaintForLife]

Again, this relies on simply ignoring all other evidence. To return to my earlier analogy, this would be like the police saying they couldn't investigate a theft from your house because you didn't have a witness there watching the items being removed... except there's DNA evidence, fingerprints on tools used to commit the crime, etc. That's plenty of evidence.

As we'll see, this is a theme here: you're being told, "Look at this!" with the intent that if you do just look at that, and don't look at anything else, it'll seem pretty compelling. But it doesn't work for anyone who looks at everything else.


In this context, it's as definitive as DNA and fingerprints on the tools used to commit the crime left at the scene. The malware was there, it was stated the data was staged for exfiltration.

I don't know if you've read the full testimony - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf - or just the carefully selected extracts (and personally, if I was trying to give full context and not try to drive a particular distorted narrative, I'd have left "MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor" before the first extract and "When I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate. I want to provide the facts. So I said that we didn't have direct evidence. But we made a conclusion that the data left the network" after the last one), but Henry was asked whether someone could have faked it:

MR. CONAWAY: Okay. ls anybody out there good enough, I guess, for lack of a better phrase, to run a false-flag operation using the exact same tactics, techniques, and procedures that cozy Bear, Fancy Bear used that would have, in other words, caused us to look at the Russians and it was actually some other group doing it? ls anybody that good yet?
MR, HENRY: So, if you'll recall when I talked earlier about attribution, you look at data over the course of many intrusions over many years, and some of the infrastructure that we saw and some of the specific tactics and tools we've only seen associated with this particular actor, and it goes back many years.
MR. CONAWAY: Right.
MR. HENRY: So for somebody to do a false flag, as you've described it, it would've, I imagine, have been in play for many years. They would've had to have acquired Russian command-and-control servers. They would've had to somehow acquire tools and software, malicious code that had been used up until this point only by what we believe was the Russian Government.
MR. CONAWAY: Right
MR. HENRY. So I don't think that that is plausible
MR. CONAWAY: Right. But not totally impossible either, given the constant development of folks getting better and better
MR' HENRY: l think that - l don't think it's a viable option --
MR. CONAWAY: Ok
MR. HENRY: -- under the circumstances here.

Ultimately, what your sources are arguing is the equivalent of a defense that tries to suggest, in the absence of a video tape or witness watching the accused steal the items, that yes, the evidence is that they were there, and yes, the evidence is that they got the items ready to steal them, but that's essentially just circumstantial evidence and maybe they just subsequently changed their mind, left without stealing them, and someone else managed to sneak in, somehow leaving no trace whatsoever, and stole the items instead? So, not guilty?

I don't think it's going out on much of a limb to suggest such a defense isn't going to be successful.


So again, this is misrepresenting the article, as can be seen by, you know, clicking the link and reading the article. The specific accusation that Russia had hacked the Ukrainian military stands, as CrowdStrike are explicitly quoted stating in the article: "This update does not in any way impact the core premise of the report that the FANCY BEAR threat actor implanted malware into a D-30 targeting application developed by a Ukrainian military officer." The person writing the article you're quoting is deliberately conflating revisions of statements about the degree of impact that had with non-existent revisions and retractions about it happening.

And a person doing that is not a reliable source.


Again, this appears to be similarly misleading:

Henry testified that:
MR. SCHlFF: And during those hundred or more contacts, did the FBI ever tell you that they needed the DNC server for their own forensic analysis?
MR. HENRY: They asked us to provide to them the images of the computers and the results of our collection. They did ask for that, and we shared that with them.
...
MR. SCHlFF: can you tell us a litile bit about the images that you provided? What are those, in technical terms? How much -- how similar are those images to the actual server itself?
MR. HENRY: So I want to be clear. And I think they're referenced in the report. When I say what we provided to them, there are some cases where we're providing the results of our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected. So we have -- we have software that we send in to the environment' lt collects artifacts, if you will, of what happened -- l mean, l'd equate it to shell casings or -- it's digital evidence - and pulls it back. lt's the remnants of code' And we will sort through all that, analyze that. we provided that information to the FBI. I believe that there are a couple of actual digital images, which would be a copy of a hard drive that we also provided to the FBI' And there were -- we're talking about, I don't know the exact number, but in excess of 10, I think, hard drives. Again, I believe you've got the documents, so I don't want to say anything that's inaccurate. But it's not -- we're not talking about one drive
MR. SCHlFF: And those copies of the drives allow you to create a duplicate virtual environment as the DNC server?
MR. HENRY: Yes.
MR. SCHIFF: And at any time did the FBI indicate to you that that was unsatisfactory in terms of their own investigation?
MR. HENRY: l'm not aware of them saying that.

Similarly, Comey didn't just say 'they'd share what they saw', he said they, 'ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system'.

FBI reviewed cybersecurity firm’s evidence in 2016 DNC election hack

Social media posts are wrongly claiming that the FBI failed to review evidence in the hack of the DNC’s computer network before concluding that Russia was responsible for the breach.

apnews.com

The accounts you're sharing with us are all basically relying on misdirection and people knowing very little about cyber-security investigations (not entirely unreasonable, but a bit frustrating to watch as someone who does know about cyber-security investigations).


This one is just weird, because all the statements before the highlighted one are entirely definitive. E.g. it starts, "The GRU began stealing DCCC data shortly after it gained access to the network." In the full context - which is right there, just not highlighted! - that indicates that they do consider the evidence definitive as far as the access and theft goes.


And this is similarly incorrect. As the article you've linked to states, they dismissed "the criminal case against a Russian firm," Concord. It doesn't say anything about the charges against those Russians. Because they weren't dismissed:

"Department officials denied that the decision to drop the charges was intended to dismantle Mr. Mueller’s work, noting that prosecutors are still pursuing charges against the 13 Russians and the Internet Research Agency." - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/concord-case-russian-interference.html​

​

When your sources rely that heavily on misdirection, misrepresentation, and misinformation, you have a problem with your sources.

What's hilarious is you trying to claim that the guy who is accused/indicted for fabricating the Alfa bank story, presenting it to the FBI/CIA as legitimate while working for Hillary, who also controlled what the FBI was able to see about the Russian hacking somehow that can be claimed as definitive that Russia hacked the DNC.

How can you claim that the government can claim anything is definitive about Russia hacking the DNC when the FBI was never allowed to view the DNC servers? CrowdStrike was contracted by the DNC and Sussman was in control of what two FBI was allowed to see. That doesn't sound fishy to you? We do know thay Russia interfered in the election, but that's separate from the DNC hack.

It's also funny that you take the DNC contracted CrowdStrike's word about why they had to retract parts of their Ukrainian story. I don't believe that Ukraine was responsible for the DNC hacking which is a popular way that many on the left have tried to distract and deflect.

If the situation was reversed and a company contacted by Trump was the only company that provided redacted materials to the FBI and they refused to let the FBI examine their servers you know you would be screaming from the mountain top that their redacted reports couldn't be trusted.

Why do you think Hillary's long time lawyer Marc Elias resigned from Perkins Coie right at the time of the indictment as well as Rodney Joeff leaving Neustar? Just a weird coincidence or are the rats jumping off the ship?

 

[SaintForLife]