...Came from the Crowdstrike Report. No official American agency (foreign or domestic) or investigation ever independently verified this and, solely, depended on the report from Crowdstrike.
Prove it
Look up any link on the investigation into the Trump campaign...Neither the FBI nor Mueller did any independent investigation into the veracity of Russian interfering in the 2016 election (which would seem important because that was the main premise for both investigations
). The FBI, Mueller and the rest of gov't yahoos took Crowdstrike's word for it that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.Ok if you have no evidence then you concede you are wrongLook up any link on the investigation into the Trump campaign...Neither the FBI nor Mueller did any independent investigation into the veracity of Russian interfering in the 2016 election (which would seem important because that was the main premise for both investigations
It's common knowledge that all US gov't agencies took the word of the Crowdstrike Report that Russia interfered in the 2016 election...Look it up on Google.
I did. You are flat out wrong.....againIt's common knowledge that all US gov't agencies took the word of the Crowdstrike Report that Russia interfered in the 2016 election...Look it up on Google.
www.crowdstrike.com
Your link proves that Crowdstrike investigated the servers (the only entity that did so) which held the 'stolen' DNC emails.I did. You are flat out wrong.....again
Our Work with the DNC: Setting the record straight
Get the key facts about CrowdStrike's work with the Democratic Natiional Committee in 2016 and debunk the false claims that have been made about our work.
And that there was a independent congressional and independent intelligence investigation
Based on what intelligence?
Dude I posted the reference. I cant make you read it
Ok, let me say it again: it was closing argument. In opening argument you can generally only discuss what you think the evidence will be. In closing, the attorneys can discuss the evidence presented at trial and make arguments on what the jury should do with the evidence. They/we cannot interject new "evidence" during closing. And in this instance, the prosecution (stupidly) had OJ actually try on the glove to which he did a great acting job making it look like it could not fit his hand. THAT was the evidence. Cochran merely argued what the jury should do with that evidence.It wasn't stricken from the record so the jurors were allowed to consider the statement.
That is not accurate but I'm going to leave it to you and Google to obtain the necessary information.
I gave it to him. He wont read it though
Well it makes it much easier to claim to be right when you refuse to view the information indicating you are wrong. It's called "Trumping."
You mean based on this link??
www.crowdstrike.com
I added the parenthetical info....I added the parenthetical information.You can try again but the jurors heard the entirety of Cochrane's closing and Ito didn't tell any of the jurors to disregard any elements of Cochrane's closing.
THe glove did not fit.You can try again but the jurors heard the entirety of Cochrane's closing and wasn't told to disregard any elements of the closing by Ito.
OJ had arthritis and had taken meds to prevent swelling of his hands... until the trial.
You completely made up what is in parenthesis.You mean based on this link??Our Work with the DNC: Setting the record straight
Get the key facts about CrowdStrike's work with the Democratic Natiional Committee in 2016 and debunk the false claims that have been made about our work.
The first subheading of the link reads: What was Crowd Strike’s role in investigating the hack of the DNC? (Not the FBI's or Mueller's (or anyone else's role).
The second subheading of the link reads: Why did the DNC contact Crowd Strike (to investigate the servers on which the 'stolen' email resided)? My point is: why did the DNC PREVENT the FBI and Mueller from investigating The DNC servers, for example?
The third subheading of the link reads: Why did the DNC hire Crowd Strike instead of just working with the FBI to investigate the hack? I think that's self-explanatory (and really hurts your argument.
The fourth subheading of the link reads: Did Crowd Strike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?...Followed by this statement: Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports (which also cite the evidence of Crowd Strike).
Like I pointed out to you, your link provides no info that disproves the fact that Crowd Strike was the only agency that examined the servers and investigated the alleged hack.
Those aren't memes, cabse5. They are the definitions of the logical fallacies you were committing .
That's up to the Senate to decide now. There are different ways of looking at it, and part of it might depend on wanting to deal with this now since it's fresh on everyone's mind versus in 3 months time when it might not be. As it stands now a trial isn't going to happen right away, so I suspect it's going to be pushed back; for how long I don't know.
If you think that, Again you supply a ready supply.
The Obama team said that to the public when Obama was in power.