Who or what is Crowdstrike?

[iguanaman]

You can Google "Crowdstrike" and you will find its web page where it advertises itself as

The world's most secure business on the first cloud-native endpoint protection platform built to stop breaches.

But we know that presumptive assessment of its own expertise was proved over-rated due to its failure to secure DNC computers from hacking in 2016. After being called on in May 2016 to stop suspected Russian hacking after damaging info from DNC emails were released, their assurance that penetration of the DNC computers was halted proved erroneous. The stolen emails detailed the crooked DNC behind-the-scenes manipulation of the primary process to guarantee Hillary's nomination in the primary, and revealing secret DNC opposition research on the Trump campaign which dated back several years.

Crowdstrike claimed it had detected suspected Russian hacking that had been occurring for maybe a year leading up to June 2016, but also assured DNC officials in June 20126 that their computers had been secured from future hacking.

Not two weeks later the DNC lost an additional trove of secret emails which Crowdstrike claimed resulted from further Russian hacking, but which tech experts said could not possibly have been stolen through hacking due to the volume of the materials stolen.

"Some of the hackers had access to the DNC network for about a year, but all were expelled over the past weekend in a major cleanup campaign, the committee officials and experts said."


Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump, The Washington Post, June 14, 2016.

You got orders from your GRU masters to start this up again? They must be getting desperate.

 

[Termn8or]

The entire Mueller Investigation was based on a dossier Mueller, the FBI and all other pertinent officials knew almost from Day One that was unsubstantiated or utter garbage and that Trump hadn't committed crimes with Russia or anything else, so the entire investigation was a hoax.

None of what you claim has yet to be substantiated. Lots of big talk coming out of Barr and so far squat. A hand slap by the I.G.. :roll:

Wake me when you have more.

It's already months by you.:lol:

The understated and limited Horowitz Report documented stunning abuses of power, crimes, malfeasance, etc.

About which you clearly know nothing and don't want to.

But here's a hint. We won't know everything until the Durham criminal investigation is finished.:lol:

 

[marke]

Conspiracy theory forums, this should be moved. It was debunked years ago, and other such threads were moved to CT.

"Conspiracy theory?" "Debunked?" What are you talking about? What conspiracy theory was debunked and how was it debunked? Brennan said it didn't happen and gullible democrat rubes took his word for it?

 

[Termn8or]

You got orders from your GRU masters to start this up again? They must be getting desperate.

Yes, Marke is, gasp, a Russian agent!

No, really, he is!

He has lunch twice a week with Putin to get his orders.:lol:

 

[Termn8or]

You got orders from your GRU masters to start this up again? They must be getting desperate.

Yes, Marke is, gasp, a Russian agent!

No, really, he is!

He has lunch twice a week with Putin to get his orders.:lol:

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, Marke is, gasp, a Russian agent!

No, really, he is!

He has lunch twice a week with Putin to get his orders.:lol:

He is a "useful idiot" like you. Why are you so fond of Putin? He's a murderous thug that wants to destroy us and everything we stand for.

Six types of 'useful idiot' - UnHerd

 

[marke]

You got orders from your GRU masters to start this up again? They must be getting desperate.

What evidence do you have that the GRU has any interest in US elections? It looks like they may be just another opportunist group gathering information to post on public sites to generate money from advertisers willing to pay to be represented by those sites.

 

[Termn8or]

Yes, Marke is, gasp, a Russian agent!

No, really, he is!

He has lunch twice a week with Putin to get his orders.:lol:

He is a "useful idiot" like you. Why are you so fond of Putin? He's a murderous thug that want to destroy us and everything we stand for.

Oh my, I feel so guilty.

Say, I hope you check under your bed regularly to see if any Russians are hiding under it.:lol:

 

[marke]

Yes, Marke is, gasp, a Russian agent!

No, really, he is!

He has lunch twice a week with Putin to get his orders.:lol:

Mueller got his hands on a picture of Putin talking with someone distantly connected to Trump and put it in his report as additional evidence of Trump's crooked connections with Putin. How stupid is that?

 

[iguanaman]

It's already months by you.:lol:

The understated and limited Horowitz Report documented stunning abuses of power, crimes, malfeasance, etc.

About which you clearly know nothing and don't want to.

But here's a hint. We won't know everything until the Durham criminal investigation is finished.:lol:

Durham will never be "done" because he has nothing and he is only there to keep up the hopes of fools and "useful idiots". Putin is the scumbag that hacked the DNC and Mueller has the indictments that prove it.

 

[Master Debator]

See if you can make these two statement harmonize: (I know I can)
1. I found no evidence of illegal activity on Trump's part.
2. I cannot charge Trump with a crime because the DOJ will not let me.

While it would be funny if you couldn't answer your own made up quote that, unfortunately, isn't quite what Mueller said.

Mueller found no compelling evidence of criminal activity on Trump's part but he still says the reason he did not charge him was because the DOJ would not allow him? Why did Mueller himself not forbid himself from charging Trump with a crime he never found Trump had committed? What is wrong with these people?

:lamo

Did baby Jesus tell you Mueller found no compelling evidence against Trump because Mueller never told you that.

Pity Stone had nobody standing up for him like Hillary had Comey forgive her of multiple violations of federal laws in the Hillary email scandal.

No one except the President of the United States, but everyone knows what weak cuck ally he is, even you apparently.

:lamo

At least Mueller offered his take on the Christopher Steel/fake democrat dossier: "Say what? Christopher Steele? Never heard of him.'

It's not Mueller's job to critique or investigate other F.B.I. depts. or agents or the information they've gathered.

You would not be so forgiving if a republican jury was set to judge a democrat accused by republican prosecutors of crimes in a court overseen by a republican judge in a republican city stronghold.

What is a republican or democrat jury exactly? How might one go about determining the political motivations of a randomly selected jury that Roger Stones own attorneys have a say in seating?

 

[marke]

Yes, Marke is, gasp, a Russian agent!

No, really, he is!

He has lunch twice a week with Putin to get his orders.:lol:

Democrats do love fake conspiracy theories invented by leftists.

 

[iguanaman]

Oh my, I feel so guilty.

Say, I hope you check under your bed regularly to see if any Russians are hiding under it.:lol:

I'm afraid you are the one with Putin hiding in your mind and making you do his bidding.

 

[Termn8or]

Yes, Marke is, gasp, a Russian agent!

No, really, he is!

He has lunch twice a week with Putin to get his orders.:lol:

Mueller got his hands on a picture of Putin talking with someone distantly connected to Trump and put it in his report as additional evidence of Trump's crooked connections with Putin. How stupid is that?

Or maybe someone said "Das vadanya" once in their life. That's proof of something nefarious!

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I forgot the secret Putin Password to access our Talking Points.

Can you give me yours?

Vladmir is going to be so upset with me!:lol:

 

[Mach]

Crowdstrike claimed resulted from further Russian hacking, but which tech experts said could not possibly have been stolen through hacking due to the volume of the materials stolen.

I quoted you, and told you specifically why it was CT. And your reply is ":what is CT, and why?" It's as though you didn't even read what I wrote to you.
And yes, these claims have been moved to CT a long time ago. That you and right wingers still push it, is so sad for America.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...ied-locally-w-11-a.html?highlight=crowdstrike

https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...ian-hack-not-w-6-a.html?highlight=crowdstrike

 

[Master Debator]

Your link doesn't address my point at all.



My point wasn't at all about indictment or prosecution. How could you make such a freaking obvious mistake?

Amazing how liberals make flatulent claims that their sources don't back up.:roll:

Why don't you take the time to admit that you were wrong and I was right?

Run, Forrest, run!

Right. I link to the actual D.O.J. government website, where it's policy on charging sitting presidents is clear and yet you claim its irrelevant to your question on why Mueller didn't accuse Trump of crimes?

:lamo

Please. No running here. I'll laugh at you all day.

 

[iguanaman]

What evidence do you have that the GRU has any interest in US elections? It looks like they may be just another opportunist group gathering information to post on public sites to generate money from advertisers willing to pay to be represented by those sites.

Yes keep it up. You might even get a medal like this from Putin for your service..

Hero of the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

 

[Termn8or]

While it would be funny if you couldn't answer your own made up quote that, unfortunately, isn't quite what Mueller said. :lamo Did baby Jesus tell you Mueller found no compelling evidence against Trump because Mueller never told you that..,No one except the President of the United States, but everyone knows what weak cuck ally he is, even you apparently :lamo It's not Mueller's job to critique or investigate other F.B.I. depts. or agents or the information they've gathered. What is a republican or democrat jury exactly? How might one go about determining the political motivations of a randomly selected jury that Roger Stones own attorneys have a say in seating?

Blah, blah, blah.

When I made the following claim, you lied that Justice Dept claimed otherwise.

Except that the link you cited as, giggle, 'proof" had nothing to do with my claim.:lol:

It has nothing to do with my opinion. I explained based on excellent sources how legal authority works. Mueller had no authority to make that decision over what he was told to do by his Justice Dept superiors.

That's very easy to understand, but you bungled it.

Are you going to admit your stupid mistake?

Nope, not a freaking chance.

 

[Master Debator]

Blah, blah, blah.

When I made the following claim, you lied that Justice Dept claimed otherwise.

Except that the link you cited as, giggle, 'proof" had nothing to do with my claim.:lol:



Are you going to admit your stupid mistake?

Nope, not a freaking chance.

Where is your proof? Again. I linked to the actual DOJ website and all youve done so far is cry here in this thread. No links, no proof, nada to back yourself up.

:lamo

 

[Termn8or]

Your link doesn't address my point at all.



My point wasn't at all about indictment or prosecution. How could you make such a freaking obvious mistake?

Amazing how liberals make flatulent claims that their sources don't back up.:roll:

Why don't you take the time to admit that you were wrong and I was right?

Run, Forrest, run!

Right. I link to the actual D.O.J. government website, where it's policy on charging sitting presidents is clear and yet you claim its irrelevant to your question on why Mueller didn't accuse Trump of crimes?

:lamo

Please. No running here. I'll laugh at you all day.

What do the following words mean? You might stop laughing and actually read them.

My point wasn't at all about indictment or prosecution. How could you make such a freaking obvious mistake?

 

[Termn8or]

Blah, blah, blah.

When I made the following claim, you lied that Justice Dept claimed otherwise.

Except that the link you cited as, giggle, 'proof" had nothing to do with my claim.:lol:



Are you going to admit your stupid mistake?


Nope, not a freaking chance.

Where is your proof? Again. I linked to the actual DOJ website and all youve done so far is cry here in this thread. No links, no proof, nada to back yourself up. :lamo

My proof is the quote I cited from the link you gave.

And again, my point had absolutely nothing to do with charging or indictments.

Are you unable to grasp basic facts?

 

[Termn8or]

Where is your proof? Again. I linked to the actual DOJ website and all youve done so far is cry here in this thread. No links, no proof, nada to back yourself up.

:lamo

Try again. Here is my original claim. You have cited zero, nothing, nada, zip that disputes or even addresses it.

Mueller had no authority to make that decision (about expressing his opinion about possible Trump crimes) over what he was told to do by his Justice Dept superiors.

That's very easy to understand, but you bungled it.

 

[Master Debator]

What do the following words mean? You might stop laughing and actually read them.

My point wasn't at all about indictment or prosecution. How could you make such a freaking obvious mistake?

Yes, yes, your question is about why Mueller didn't accuse Trump of crimes not charge because word games is all you got. What's the difference? And what is the point of the question. That's thing with you right wingers. You never address what the point of these silly rhetorical questions are.

Mueller didnt charge Trump because the DOJ guidelines said he couldn't. You won't dispute that because that is a fact.

He didn't accuse Trump because he's not a gossipy school girl. I gave you that answer already and you want to pretend otherwise.

 

[Termn8or]

I find it hilarious how every single chest beating liberal "expert" melts down into lies and utter bulls***.:lol:

And make endless false claims with links that don't back up their claims.

They must all work out of the same dishonest Democrat Playbook.

What do the following words mean? You might stop laughing and actually read them.

My point wasn't at all about indictment or prosecution. How could you make such a freaking obvious mistake?

Yes, yes, your question is about why Mueller didn't accuse Trump of crimes not charge because word games is all you got. What's the difference? And what is the point of the question. That's thing with you right wingers. You never address what the point of these silly rhetorical questions are.

Mueller didnt charge Trump because the DOJ guidelines said he couldn't. You won't dispute that because that is a fact.

He didn't accuse Trump because he's not a gossipy school girl. I gave you that answer already and you want to pretend otherwise.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Mueller's bosses both asked him to offer an opinion as to whether or not Trump committed any crimes.

No indictment. No charges, just an opinion.

And given that they are his bosses, Mueller had no legal authority to defy them, but he refused.

And he and his team are being exposed as hacks, if not criminals. Two have already been referred for indictment, and I'll bet more will follow.

 

[Master Debator]

Try again. Here is my original claim. You have cited zero, nothing, nada, zip that disputes or even addresses it.

Mueller had no authority to make that decision (about expressing his opinion about possible Trump crimes) over what he was told to do by his Justice Dept superiors.

That's very easy to understand, but you bungled it.

You try again. Why should Mueller have accused Trump or a crime he didn't feel he could charge him with? Out of spite? Because his feeling were hurt? Where is your answer?