• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Newly uncovered bombshell: Crowdstrike had no solid evidence Russians hacked the DNC computers

Per the same Breitbart reportMueller Report: Special Counsel Didn't Examine DNC Servers -- Based on FBI Investigation that Didn't Examine DNC Servers

While the investigation <Mueller investigation> identified evidence that the GRU targeted these individuals and entities, the Office did not investigate further. The Office did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims. The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity.

And the FBI investigated that activity by perusing the Crowdstrike Report on the server(s) in question.

Yeah, you're going to need to do better than a wacko conspiracy site. Jesus, wtf are you doing getting information from a site like that anyways? Are you purposefully trying to be misinformed?

Breitbart - Media Bias/Fact Check
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.
 
Mebe you can trust Mueller because Mueller said the same thing in his report of his investigation that the Mueller investigation based their assumptions that Russia hacked the DNC emails from the Crowdstrike report on the server(s) which contained the DNC emails.Mueller Report: Special Counsel Didn't Examine DNC Servers -- Based on FBI Investigation that Didn't Examine DNC Servers You probably don't believe Breitbart, either.:lamo

WASHINGTON — In his extensive report, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not “obtain or examine” the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in determining whether those servers were hacked by Russia.

Instead, Mueller’s assessment of the DNC’s allegedly hacked servers relied upon the investigations conducted by the FBI and other agencies. “The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity,” reads Mueller’s report.

When looking at 1's and 0's, what is the value of looking at transistors and semiconductors?
 
Ironically, Mr. Henry of CrowdStrike testified that the FBI strangely did not take the leading role in the hacking crime, although the FBI had been the first to notify a DNC contractor of the hacking that had been going on for months. Mr. Henry could not offer a guess as to why the FBI failed to take the lead in investigating the crime but totally yielded all investigative interests to CrowdStrike.

Actually he did offer a guess....it's in the transcript...which I'm starting to doubt you even read.
 
Mueller had no clue how the emails got from the DNC into Wikileak's hands. That is why he never claims he did find out, because he never did. Mueller did lie, or else one of his Hillary-loving, Trump-hating democrat hound dog prosecutors lied for him in the report. Mueller's report says Papadopolous told Misfud about "Russian possession of DNC emails."

In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks’s first release of stolen documents, a foreign
government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy
advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign
government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that
it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July
31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign
were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities

(Mueller Report, Vol. 1, p.9)

That was a lie. The truth was that Misfud told Papadopolous the lie first and if afterward Papadopolous said anything of the sort it was because he got his info from the lying Misfud. We know Misfud lied and set Papadopolous up from other knowledgeable sources.

While he was in Washington, the FBI approached Mifsud in the lobby of his hotel and questioned him about his interactions with Papadopoulos, prosecutors have said. Mueller wrote in his report that the Maltese professor made various inaccurate statements but that lies Papadopoulos had told the FBI about his interactions with Mifsud when he was interviewed 12 days earlier “undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...74fe8c-8185-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html

Did Mueller or his team examine the DNC computers themselves to determine how Wikileaks got the emails? No. Did Mueller or his team question Assange, who had offered to give them a sworn statement about the emails? No. Did Mueller or his team contact the NSA about what they had on the DNC emails, Assange and Seth Rich? No. Mueller and his team simply blindly accepted the report issued by "Two unnamed federal agencies" as to how the emails left the DNC. Strangely, Mueller does not mention that those "two federal agencies" never examined the DNC computers themselves and that Obama had said of their assdessment that the opinionated fact-less conclusions "were not conclusive."

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack | The Nation

That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed
recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political
organizations,” and, “[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election
process.” After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia
for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were
examining Russia’s interference in the election


Mueller Report, Vol. 1, p.9.

Crowdstrike never had physical possession of the DNC servers, either. They did everything remotely...as did the FBI. But you would know that if you had read the transcript.
 
This is from p. 50:

2. Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC
network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team
alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as “Fancy Bear”) were
responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016,
GRU officers using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up
to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and
managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English,
including “some hundred sheets,” “illuminati,” and “worldwide known.” Approximately two
hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC
server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases
that the GRU officers had searched for that day.



Let's say Mueller expects this 'evidence' to prove his case against the Russians. What is the first question the Russian defense attorney is going to ask? He will ask, "Mr. Mueller, you quote an unnamed source, referred to as "The DNC and its cyber-response team" as evidence of Russian hacking. Who are these people and why are you allowing them to tell you what to think instead of doing your own research? Did you examine the DNC computers yourself? No? Did the FBI share its 'irrefutable' evidence with you? If so, what are you doing quoting these unofficial reports from amateurs?

There are many problems with the Mueller Report which intelligent people without bias can see throughout. No wonder Mueller had a hard time rehearsing what he supposedly learned in his 3 year investigation. He had compiled a load of opinionated crap and expected gullible Americans to simply take him at his word that what he was presenting were irrefutable facts.

Unnamed source? Mueller named and indicted 16 Russian hackers and he didn't get their names from Crowdstrike.
 
Trump was taunting democrats and their leftist dogs by suggesting in public that if Russia was hacking the DNC and stealing emails then they could possibly produce the emails Hillary had destroyed rather than turn them over to Congress as was required by federal law. Nevertheless, CrowdStrike was questioned about the Russian hacking and Mr. Henry never said anything about some supposed hacking in the last week of July 2016. In fact, he said he had finished installing protections against hacking on June 12 of 2016. I can understand why he would say nothing about hacking in July that allegedly occurred 6 weeks after he had supposedly installed expert protections against hacking.

But where did this July 17 date come from? Russia hacked the DNC just days after Trump's speech? Who made up that crap? What some leading democrats know and I believe CrowdStrike knows but is not talking about is the fact that 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC server around 6:PM Eastern on July 5, 2026, just 5 days before Seth Rich's murder, in a transfer to a storage device which took just 87 seconds to download. They know that was the date and time from the time stamps on the emails themselves. That was the bulk of what was released by Wikileaks before the Nov 2016 election.



A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack | The Nation

You're confused. Crowdstrike only worked on the DNC servers....not the servers for the DCCC or Hillary's campaign. The Russians attacked Clinton's campaign servers the same day that Trump asked them to find her emails.

Mr. Henry testified that while working to remediate the DNC servers there was a second breech into servers that hadn't been protected yet. It's all in the transcript...that you didn't read.
 
Mueller solely used the findings of Crowdstrike to report that that Russia hacked the DNC emails...So did the FBI solely use the findings of Crowdstrike to investigate the hacking of DNC emails by Russia.

Side note:The fact that Crowdstrike also used the RNC or that in another post in this thread that Crowdstrike was hired by the same firm that hired the principles for the Steele dossier means nothing in particular.

No, Mueller didn't rely solely on the findings of Crowdstrike...and neither did the FBI.

The FBI were the first to discover the DNC was hacked nearly a year before Crowdstrike was hired. They didn't need Crowdstrike to know that it was the Russians, either. ..

No, Crowdstrike didn't hire the RNC...the RNC hired Crowdstrike. That means that they trusted Crowdstrike to remediate their servers.
 
Mebe you can trust Mueller because Mueller said the same thing in his report of his investigation that the Mueller investigation based their assumptions that Russia hacked the DNC emails from the Crowdstrike report on the server(s) which contained the DNC emails.Mueller Report: Special Counsel Didn't Examine DNC Servers -- Based on FBI Investigation that Didn't Examine DNC Servers You probably don't believe Breitbart, either.:lamo

WASHINGTON — In his extensive report, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not “obtain or examine” the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in determining whether those servers were hacked by Russia.

Instead, Mueller’s assessment of the DNC’s allegedly hacked servers relied upon the investigations conducted by the FBI and other agencies. “The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity,” reads Mueller’s report.

No one obtained the servers or had any need to. An image of the servers was made and used to determine the culprits. That is how it is always done and it is a lie to say otherwise.
 
Unnamed source? Mueller named and indicted 16 Russian hackers and he didn't get their names from Crowdstrike.

Mueller was not specific about the details. Why? Because he had no details. He and his team of Hillary-loving Trump-hating savages knew they were casting out vague generalities and unproven allegations to be used by the leftist democrat mob to use to dishonestly spin to ignorant and giullible Americans as proven facts of Trump corruption. Now those lying democrat and leftist liberal dogs are being exposed with new revelations of cdorruption in formerly hidden facts nearly every day. Mueller has no clue how the DNC emails went from the DNC to Wikileaks.

I'll ask you a few questions the leftist scumbag liberal media will never ask, and you can read the Mueller Report a thousand times and you will not find the answers.

1. How long had the FBI known the DNC was being hacked before CrowdStrike was called in? Ans: At least 6 months.
2. If the FBI knew criminal hacking was taking place why did they not do the investigation themselves instead of deferring to a contractor working for a law firm working for the DNC? There is no answer. Nobody ever gave an answer even though the question was asked in the House hearing.
3. Why did the FBI rely on the CrowdStrikes assessment instead of examining the computers themselves and forming their own assessment? No answer given.
4. Did the FBI, the NSA, the DNC, or Robert Mueller prove CrowdStrike wrong when Mr. Henry said CrowdStrike could not prove the DNC computers had even been hacked?
5. Why was Mr. Henry of CrowdStrike not asked about the July 5, 2016 transfer of DNC data to a memory device, but instead only asked about hacks that occurred before his company had installed security protections against hacking on the DNC computers by June 12, 2016?

There are many, many more details which prove the Mueller Report is filled with flaws, inaccuracies, bad assumptions, and horrendous mistakes.
 
Last edited:
You're confused. Crowdstrike only worked on the DNC servers....not the servers for the DCCC or Hillary's campaign. The Russians attacked Clinton's campaign servers the same day that Trump asked them to find her emails.

Mr. Henry testified that while working to remediate the DNC servers there was a second breech into servers that hadn't been protected yet. It's all in the transcript...that you didn't read.

More democrat crap propaganda. The democrats invented the fake hacker known as 'Guccifer 2.0.' Democrats 'leaked insignificant emails at various times beginning in June 2016 after being notified by Assange that he had some of their emails. The leaks were conveniently attributed to the mysterious 'Guccifer 2.0' in order to support their lying narrate that the Russians had hacked into their system. Guccifer 2.0 never released anything but slop - insignificant materials, much of what could already be found on public sites. What Guccifer 2.0 did not do was hack the DNC on July 25, 2016, and steal 1,976 megabytes of data in just 87 seconds. Mr. Mueller Magoo for all his skill and expertise, may have indicted 17 Russians for hacking with the intention of sending them to jail just like Guccifer 1.0 was caught and sent to prison, but Mueller never did find out who 'Guccifer 2.0' was, could not identify him and had no idea how he got the emails and delivered them to Adssange, or demonstrate any evidence that that is even what he did.
 
Last edited:
No, Mueller didn't rely solely on the findings of Crowdstrike...and neither did the FBI.

The FBI were the first to discover the DNC was hacked nearly a year before Crowdstrike was hired. They didn't need Crowdstrike to know that it was the Russians, either. ..

No, Crowdstrike didn't hire the RNC...the RNC hired Crowdstrike. That means that they trusted Crowdstrike to remediate their servers.

Think about it. The FBI knew of the hacking for "a year" before the DNC hired Perkins Coie to hire CrowdStrike. Mr. Henry with CrowdStrike did not know if the FBI had even notified the DNC of the hacking during that time but said the FBI may have been communicating only with a contractor (not CrowdStrike) who had been hired by the DNC. What Mr. Henry had no answer for and the question Mr. Mueller never asked was

"Why the hell did the FBI not investigate the hacking themselves since it clearly was a crime and a breach of national security? Why did the FBI say nothing about the hacking to the DNC for six months and then turn to a law firm hired by the DNC to hire a private contractor to investigate the crime for them?
 
No one obtained the servers or had any need to. An image of the servers was made and used to determine the culprits. That is how it is always done and it is a lie to say otherwise.

No, that is not how it is done. Mr. Henry of CrowdStrike told Congress that the FBI had known about the hacking of the DNC computers for many months before Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike to come in and investigate. The question Mr. Henry had no answer for and which no democrat involved has ever asked is

"What the hell was the FBI doing for 6 months to a year while criminals hacked the DNC computers while they sat there and watched? What the hell was the FBI thinking to then turn to a law firm to hire a computer tech firm to do their investigating for them after doing nothing for months about the crime?"

You may be right. That may be how things were normally done by Comey and his inept corrupted gang of misfit circus clowns at the FBI, but that is not how Comey should have handled it or would have handled it if he had not been such an incompetent quack.
 
No, Mueller didn't rely solely on the findings of Crowdstrike...and neither did the FBI.

The FBI were the first to discover the DNC was hacked nearly a year before Crowdstrike was hired. They didn't need Crowdstrike to know that it was the Russians, either. ..

No, Crowdstrike didn't hire the RNC...the RNC hired Crowdstrike. That means that they trusted Crowdstrike to remediate their servers.

They don't care, they'll continue to lie and many will continue to claim christianity as their religion.
 
No one obtained the servers or had any need to. An image of the servers was made and used to determine the culprits. That is how it is always done and it is a lie to say otherwise.

They don't care. Rush and Sean push the misleading stuff and they gobble it up.
 
No, that is not how it is done. Mr. Henry of CrowdStrike told Congress that the FBI had known about the hacking of the DNC computers for many months before Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike to come in and investigate. The question Mr. Henry had no answer for and which no democrat involved has ever asked is

"What the hell was the FBI doing for 6 months to a year while criminals hacked the DNC computers while they sat there and watched? What the hell was the FBI thinking to then turn to a law firm to hire a computer tech firm to do their investigating for them after doing nothing for months about the crime?"

You may be right. That may be how things were normally done by Comey and his inept corrupted gang of misfit circus clowns at the FBI, but that is not how Comey should have handled it or would have handled it if he had not been such an incompetent quack.

LOL Now you are saying that the FBI should have been more involved in investigating Russian interference in our elections? I thought that they were too involved? You are not making any sense. Even if there was any evidence that the FBI knew about the hacking, which there isn't, it doesn't change a single thing. The FBI got their act together soon enough and the 100's of contacts with Trump associates and Russian operatives that were monitored attest to that. Apparently Trump people had a Fantasy Football league with the Kremlin going on all thru the Campaign..... Right? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Think about it. The FBI knew of the hacking for "a year" before the DNC hired Perkins Coie to hire CrowdStrike. Mr. Henry with CrowdStrike did not know if the FBI had even notified the DNC of the hacking during that time but said the FBI may have been communicating only with a contractor (not CrowdStrike) who had been hired by the DNC. What Mr. Henry had no answer for and the question Mr. Mueller never asked was

"Why the hell did the FBI not investigate the hacking themselves since it clearly was a crime and a breach of national security? Why did the FBI say nothing about the hacking to the DNC for six months and then turn to a law firm hired by the DNC to hire a private contractor to investigate the crime for them?


How do you think the FBI found out the DNC was hacked if they didn't investigate?

Mr. Henry said the FBI were investigating every step of the way and they were in constant contact for over two months.

Maybe if you read the transcript you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions and make stuff up.
 
Mueller was not specific about the details. Why? Because he had no details. He and his team of Hillary-loving Trump-hating savages knew they were casting out vague generalities and unproven allegations to be used by the leftist democrat mob to use to dishonestly spin to ignorant and giullible Americans as proven facts of Trump corruption. Now those lying democrat and leftist liberal dogs are being exposed with new revelations of cdorruption in formerly hidden facts nearly every day. Mueller has no clue how the DNC emails went from the DNC to Wikileaks.

I'll ask you a few questions the leftist scumbag liberal media will never ask, and you can read the Mueller Report a thousand times and you will not find the answers.

1. How long had the FBI known the DNC was being hacked before CrowdStrike was called in? Ans: At least 6 months.
2. If the FBI knew criminal hacking was taking place why did they not do the investigation themselves instead of deferring to a contractor working for a law firm working for the DNC? There is no answer. Nobody ever gave an answer even though the question was asked in the House hearing.
3. Why did the FBI rely on the CrowdStrikes assessment instead of examining the computers themselves and forming their own assessment? No answer given.
4. Did the FBI, the NSA, the DNC, or Robert Mueller prove CrowdStrike wrong when Mr. Henry said CrowdStrike could not prove the DNC computers had even been hacked?
5. Why was Mr. Henry of CrowdStrike not asked about the July 5, 2016 transfer of DNC data to a memory device, but instead only asked about hacks that occurred before his company had installed security protections against hacking on the DNC computers by June 12, 2016?

There are many, many more details which prove the Mueller Report is filled with flaws, inaccuracies, bad assumptions, and horrendous mistakes.


Mueller provided plenty of details in the indictment document. Here, you can read it for yourself...37 pages full of details...

https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo89499/file1035477download.pdf
 
LOL Now you are saying that the FBI should have been more involved in investigating Russian interference in our elections? I thought that they were too involved? You are not making any sense. Even if there was any evidence that the FBI knew about the hacking, which there isn't, it doesn't change a single thing. The FBI got their act together soon enough and the 100's of contacts with Trump associates and Russian operatives that were monitored attest to that. Apparently Trump people had a Fantasy Football league with the Kremlin going on all thru the Campaign..... Right? :lamo

No, I did not say that. We cannot be sure the FBI thought it was the Russians as they monitored the hacking of the DNC between 2015 and 2016. Mr. Henry of CrowdStrike said he was not sure the FBI claimed it was the Russians. At any rate, surely yoiu don't think the Russians were hacking the DNC in 2015 in order to help Trump.

I did not say the FBI should have been investigating Russia for anything. I said the FBI should have started investigating the hacking in 2015 when we first heard of it and not stopped investigating it until they had identified the guilty party and charged them with the crime. It the DNC did not want the FBI involved that should not have mattered. The FBI should have still done its job and investigated the crime as a matter of national security. If the DNC wanted to hire a law firm to hire a computer tech to do work on its computers that is an entirely different subject. There is no excuse for the FBI not doing its job.
 
How do you think the FBI found out the DNC was hacked if they didn't investigate?

Mr. Henry said the FBI were investigating every step of the way and they were in constant contact for over two months.

Maybe if you read the transcript you wouldn't have to ask dumb questions and make stuff up.

You are screwing up the facts. The FBI told a contractor for the DNC about the hacking as early as 2015. Let's quote from the hearing transcript:

Mr. Henry: ... I subsequently became aware that they had been contacted previously by the FBI. So I think in looking at the communications they had with the FBI and then whatever traffic that they saw or unusual activity, it led them to believe that they needed to contact somebody to do a full examination of the environment.

Mr. Stewart: Okay. And as I recall, the FBI initiated contact with them. Is that your understanding?

Mr. Henry: That is my understanding, yes, sir.


We find that the FBI had known of the hacking for months before CrowdStrike had been called in. But, there are some strange questions which need answering. How is it the FBI had not already started its own investigation of the hackling and why did the DNC call in a computer tech and shut out the FBI after they were told of the hacking? And who came up with the idea just days into the computer remediation that Russia was behind the hacking in efforts to help Trump? The FBI never said that and CrowdStrike knew nothing about that. That narrative must have been invented by the DNC.
 
Mueller provided plenty of details in the indictment document. Here, you can read it for yourself...37 pages full of details...

https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo89499/file1035477download.pdf

I posted 5 unanswered questions. I said Mueller did not answer the questions and that fact is troubling. All you have to do is prove me wrong by quoting Mueller in answer to one or more of the questions. I have read the Mueller Report. Both of them. I have both reports on file in my computer.
 
Yeah, you're going to need to do better than a wacko conspiracy site. Jesus, wtf are you doing getting information from a site like that anyways? Are you purposefully trying to be misinformed?

Breitbart - Media Bias/Fact Check
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.

Like I posted earlier. For example, Mueller in his own testimony before congress concerning the Mueller investigation said his investigation did not examine the DNC servers in question....And neither did the FBI for that matter...Probably because the DNC wouldn't let either gov't investigatory body investigate the servers in question.:roll:

You may not like the messenger (Breitbart, for example) but that doesn't make the message any less credible. The Mueller investigation, for example, didn't investigate the servers on which the alleged stolen DNC emails resided but, instead, depended on the Crowdstrike Report of the alleged server(s)...and now there is evidence that Crowdstrike didn't have credible evidence that Russia hacked the server(s).Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails | Just The News[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Now we find out what democrat insiders have known for years. The original claim attributed to Crowdstrike and rubber stamped by democrats in Obama administration and the leftist media that Russians stole the emails that ended up in Assange's hands was never backed by solid evidence of any kind.

Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails | Just The News

Yet, it is Your guys who were having closed door private policy not public policy meetings with the Russians.
 
Yet, it is Your guys who were having closed door private policy not public policy meetings with the Russians.

What point are you trying to make? Trump has had closed door meetings with China and with the leader of China Xi Jinping.
For that matter, the Obama administration had closed door meetings with Iran. Is Trump allied with China? The BO administration allied with Iran?:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom