• 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!

Who or what is Crowdstrike?

No.

What was to be gained from doing that?

There isn’t any question that the Russians were responsibility for hacking the DNC servers, or that they shared that information through their cut out, Julian Asange. Or that, Roger Stone was fully aware of what was going on, and that he was directing how it would be used.

The Mueller Report documents and catalogs that involvement. The Senate Intelligence Committee just agreed. Perhaps this us why you’re being fed that incomplete narrative with the suggestion of a baseless conspiracy. This wouldn;t be the first time the Trump crowd ran that play.

Why would you be dredging up this nonsense anyway?

You seem satisfied with the democrat narratives and support their efforts to silence Americans about this serious breach in American security and violation of constitutional and civil rights, especially the rights of the President of the United States. But I am not satisfied with the democrat self-serving narrative and attempt at a cover up. Innocent men have gone through hell because of the propagation of false narratives and the guilty have gone free, and the case is still evolving in current investigations and court cases.

Nobody can "dredge up" the final results of investigations into the origin of the fake Trump/Russian collusion narratives and investigations until those investigations have finally issued their findings, which they have not yet done.
 
Sorry, wrong again. Half of what was in the report was never written or provided by Mueller. Its was nothing but dress up for a failed conspiracy to get Trump as an agent of Russia. It hit the ground with a thud heard around the world.

Guess how everyone knows that. Mueller couldn't recall more than half of the information he was questioned with during the hearing with the actual report, page, line, and paragraph given to him. He was as bewildered as everyone else.

If Mueller and his cast of FBI, CIA, Lawyers, and witnesses could have found a criminal claim, they would have made it. Plain and simple. It was no different than the report provided by Ken Starr with pages upon pages of Clinton did X that was never even claimed against him. The difference was Starr had 13 felony criminal recommendations where Mueller had a big fat ZERO.

So you can read all the fluff you think is real all day, but at the end of the day, the report is only as good as its criminal chargeable findings of which he couldn't even come up with one.

When you hear the stupidity of the claim
(If we could absolve Trump of criminal activity we would have)
and not realize that the other side of that coin is
(If we had a criminal claim we would make it)

and not recognize just how dumb that sounds, its an excuse for such a failed investigation into claims that were never there.

Now you know why only Liberals on the internet are talking about it and Democrats are distancing themselves as far as they can. The sound of their silence is DEAFENING.

When you have to dig up an old 80 year old dinosaur from the Clinton Watergate scandal to testify against a president he has never even met or spoke too his entire life,
that should tell you everything you need to know.

You made most of that up out of whole cloth.

Justice Department guidelines prohibited Mueller from making a criminal recommendation.

I wondered why you Trumpsters seems to be intent on relitigating it with the same old BS you tried the last time.

Trump is President because Mitch McConnell saved his ass.

I have yet to see a liberal who can answer these questions honestly.

How many crimes did the Mueller Report accuse Trump of?

What crimes did Mueller accuse Trump of in his testimony before Congress?

How many crimes did the Justice Dept determine Trump committed, based on Mueller's evidence?

If Mueller did accuse Trump of crimes, why wasn't one single one of them included in the Impeachment Bill?
 
Sorry, wrong again. Half of what was in the report was never written or provided by Mueller. Its was nothing but dress up for a failed conspiracy to get Trump as an agent of Russia. It hit the ground with a thud heard around the world.

Guess how everyone knows that. Mueller couldn't recall more than half of the information he was questioned with during the hearing with the actual report, page, line, and paragraph given to him. He was as bewildered as everyone else.

If Mueller and his cast of FBI, CIA, Lawyers, and witnesses could have found a criminal claim, they would have made it. Plain and simple. It was no different than the report provided by Ken Starr with pages upon pages of Clinton did X that was never even claimed against him. The difference was Starr had 13 felony criminal recommendations where Mueller had a big fat ZERO.

So you can read all the fluff you think is real all day, but at the end of the day, the report is only as good as its criminal chargeable findings of which he couldn't even come up with one.

When you hear the stupidity of the claim
(If we could absolve Trump of criminal activity we would have)
and not realize that the other side of that coin is
(If we had a criminal claim we would make it)

and not recognize just how dumb that sounds, its an excuse for such a failed investigation into claims that were never there.

Now you know why only Liberals on the internet are talking about it and Democrats are distancing themselves as far as they can. The sound of their silence is DEAFENING.

When you have to dig up an old 80 year old dinosaur from the Clinton Watergate scandal to testify against a president he has never even met or spoke too his entire life,
that should tell you everything you need to know.

According to Ken Dilanian of NBC, "Mueller deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times" in his July 24, 2019 testimony.

https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1154111446516731904
 
What is it you think about CrowdStrike that constitutes a conspiracy theory? Do you think Trump/Russian collusion obsessions by most democrats for more than 3 years were debunked conspiracy theories? Me too.

Not according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Besides, Trump practically brags about it.
 
According to Ken Dilanian of NBC, "Mueller deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times" in his July 24, 2019 testimony.

https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/11541114465116731904

True, he wasn't really in charge of his investigation. That crooked pitbull, abusive prosecutor Weismann likely was.

But do you believe that Mueller really is that clueless and senile?;)

That had to be an act in fear of being indicted. "Gosh, I can't remember much about anything? Where am I?

What day is today?":lol:
 
Not according to Mueller himself. That is as simple as it gets. If you had a real argument, you wouldn't need to continually misrepresent the man.
:shrug:

I don't believe you. Mueller never claimed to have found compelling evidence of criminal activity by Trump. Unsubstantiated allegations are not compelling evidences. No wonder Mueller did not indict Trump. One of his democrat hound dog prosecutors must have clued him in to the fact that unsubstantiated allegations will not stand up in court.
 
Meaning that you did not read the report. It left no doubt who Putin was helping and also that Trump welcomed the help and expected to benefit from it.

The report is filled with opinions, biased conclusions, assumptions, and other 'evidence', but no compelling case for accusing Russians of delivering hacked DNC emails to Assange or of accusing Putin of wanting Trump elected was ever offered. Not one time.
 
Not according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Besides, Trump practically brags about it.

13 members of the Senate Intelligence committee are prepared to offer compelling evidence that CrowdStrike is a conspiracy theory? I do not believe you. Senators should not blindly take the word of investigators who admit they had no interest ion interviewing Assange or forensically examining the DNC for clues after the reported breach.
 
Last edited:
The report is filled with opinions, biased conclusions, assumptions, and other 'evidence', but no compelling case for accusing Russians of delivering hacked DNC emails to Assange or of accusing Putin of wanting Trump elected was ever offered. Not one time.

There are ZERO opinions in the Mueller report only hard evidence. Mueller even knew the names of the Russian hackers and indicted them. Besides the fact that Putin admitted he wanted Trump in Helsinki.
 
13 members of the Senate Intelligence committee are prepared to offer compelling evidence that CrowdStrike is a conspiracy theory? I do not believe you.

According to Treehouse and implied by other conservative sources, the Senate Intelligence Committee is a corrupt swamp, the least honest place in Congress.

Which is why they generally sided with Brennan and intelligence community swamp creatures, rather than with the truth.
 
There are ZERO opinions in the Mueller report only hard evidence. Mueller even knew the names of the Russian hackers and indicted them. Besides the fact that Putin admitted he wanted Trump in Helsinki.

I love the way you just make stuff up.

It's so creative!;)
 
Neither republicans nor democrats should be deceived into believing these internet security services are as good as they say they are.

NTL, Crowdstrike was hired by republicans for the same reason they were hired by the DNC.

FWIW, Crowdstrike wasn't hired to be an internet security service. Crowdstrike is a cyber forensics company and were hired to find out who hacked the DNC...and the RNC, apparently.
 
There are ZERO opinions in the Mueller report only hard evidence. Mueller even knew the names of the Russian hackers and indicted them. Besides the fact that Putin admitted he wanted Trump in Helsinki.

Boy, are you mixed up. Let me ask a question which will give you an opportunity to post some of this "hard evidence" you say is in the report. How did Mueller prove hackers wanted the information so as to help Trump instead of wanting the information to use on social media sites designed to generate money from advertisers willing to buy space on their opinionated social media sites? Mueller offers no proof for either scenario. Period.
 
After the DNC detected in April, 2016, hacking that had been ongoing for nearly a year, they called in CrowdStrike to secure their computers against hacking. CrowdStrike had the computers secured by early June 2016. After more breaches were discovered later that month CrowdStrike finally informed the FBI of the national security breaches that had been ongoing for months, blaming the Russians for the breach, but they strangely did not allow the FBI to examine the computers for clues in the case. James Comey testified in April 2017 that the FBI had never been given access to the DNC computers, which is strange, to say the least.


The FBI knew before the DNC that they were getting hacked and failed to properly notify them. Which begs the question, how did the FBI know that without examining the DNC's computers?


"...In early 2015, the NSA apprised the FBI and other agencies of the DNC intrusions which the Dutch had secretly detected and on August 15, 2015, the Washington field office first alerted DNC technical staff of the compromise of their systems.[23] Much later, the lack of higher level communications between the political party and the government was seen by the former as an "unfathomable lapse" and it wasn't until April 2016 when legal authorizations to share sensitive technical data with the government finally apprised DNC leaders that their systems had been penetrated.[24]..."

Democratic National Committee cyber attacks - Wikipedia


James Comey later regretted not informing the DNC they were getting hacked.
 
The FBI knew before the DNC that they were getting hacked and failed to properly notify them. Which begs the question, how did the FBI know that without examining the DNC's computers?


"...In early 2015, the NSA apprised the FBI and other agencies of the DNC intrusions which the Dutch had secretly detected and on August 15, 2015, the Washington field office first alerted DNC technical staff of the compromise of their systems.[23] Much later, the lack of higher level communications between the political party and the government was seen by the former as an "unfathomable lapse" and it wasn't until April 2016 when legal authorizations to share sensitive technical data with the government finally apprised DNC leaders that their systems had been penetrated.[24]..."
Democratic National Committee cyber attacks - Wikipedia
James Comey later regretted not informing the DNC they were getting hacked.

If the FBI had known about the Russian intrusions for at least a year before the DNC called on CrowdStrike for help, then why did they never alert the DNC?
Even more importantly, why didn't the NSA tell the FBI who was behind the leaks and how to stop them? And why did the FBI and "17 other intelligence agencies" in the Obama administration rely completely on the word of CrowdStrike technicians to dictate to them who was hacking their computers and why?

Most Americans know by now that much of what is reported by media sources is not totally trustworthy. The same can be said for opinionated articles posted on Wikipedia. But nobody has to trust everything that is said in the posted Wikipedia article to point out a few things. For example, notice how many times the claims made by CrowdStrike are behind nearly every government conclusion and assessment in the DNC leak scandal. Here are quotes from the Wikipedia article:

...cybersecurity experts, (et.al) stated that the cyberespionage was the work of Russian...
Forensic evidence analyzed by several cybersecurity firms, CrowdStrike (et. al)...
The American cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, ...revealed a history...
Both were finally identified by CrowdStrike in May 2016 (where was the NSA before this? or the FBI who was supposedly already aware? Ignorant and silent before CrowdStrike sounded the alarm and identified the source?)
However, cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike (et. al) have rejected the claims of "Guccifer 2.0"...
According toCrowdStrike, other targeted sectors include: Defense...(Now I really want to know why the NSA and the FBI had been turning a blind eye to these supposed Russian national security threats until after CrowdStrike raised the alarm.)
CrowdStrike reported targeting has included Aerospace, Defense, Energy, ... (What is CrowdStrike now, besides a DNC contractor, the US government agency which handles every cypersecurity threat in the country which feeds its findings to the FBI and NSA and other agencies for them to use or not?)
The DNC commissioned the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to defeat the intrusions. (The DNC chose to call CrowdStrike, not the FBI or NSA?)
Other cybersecurity firms,=...came to the same conclusion as CrowdStrike...


It is very hard not to conclude that the narrative driving all the conclusions about the hacking of the DNC originated from the DNC contractor CrowdStrike. That narrative, is flawed, whether lazy bums want to look into it or not.

 
Last edited:
If the FBI had known about the Russian intrusions for at least a year before the DNC called on CrowdStrike for help, then why did they never alert the DNC?
They did...sort of. It's been reported that a low level FBI field officer called them once...but he didn't really stress the severity of the problem so the DNC didn't take it that seriously.

"...In early 2015, the NSA apprised the FBI and other agencies of the DNC intrusions which the Dutch had secretly detected and on August 15, 2015, the Washington field office first alerted DNC technical staff of the compromise of their systems.[23] Much later, the lack of higher level communications between the political party and the government was seen by the former as an "unfathomable lapse" and it wasn't until April 2016 when legal authorizations to share sensitive technical data with the government finally apprised DNC leaders that their systems had been penetrated.[24].."

Democratic National Committee cyber attacks - Wikipedia


Even more importantly, why didn't the NSA tell the FBI who was behind the leaks and how to stop them?

They did. Within 24 hours after being notified, the FBI averted the hack attack at the State Dept...

"...After a few months, in November 2014, the Dutch watched as the Russian hackers penetrated the computer network of the State Department. After being alerted to this by the Dutch intelligence chiefs, it took the Americans over 24 hours to avert the Russian attack, after a digital clash which, years later, at a discussion forum in Aspen, the Deputy Director of the NSA would refer to as hand-to-hand combat . Basing itself on intelligence sources, the Washington Post wrote that a Western ally had been of assistance..."

Dutch intelligence first to alert U.S. about Russian hack of Democratic Party | Nieuwsuur


And why did the FBI and "17 other intelligence agencies" in the Obama administration rely completely on the word of CrowdStrike technicians to dictate to them who was hacking their computers and why?

They relied on many sources...in this case the Dutch were most helpful...

"... In the Summer of 2015, Dutch intelligence services were the first to alert their American counterparts about the cyberintrusion of the Democratic National Committee by Cozy Bear, a hacking group believed to be tied to the Russian government..."

Dutch intelligence first to alert U.S. about Russian hack of Democratic Party | Nieuwsuur


It is very hard not to conclude that the narrative driving all the conclusions about the hacking of the DNC originated from the DNC contractor CrowdStrike. That narrative, is flawed, whether lazy bums want to look into it or not.

Crowdstrike is a cyber forensics company that was hired to find out who attacked the DNC server and stop it. But you seem to be blaming them for things that occured before they were hired and that's really not fair.
 
They did...sort of. It's been reported that a low level FBI field officer called them once...but he didn't really stress the severity of the problem so the DNC didn't take it that seriously.

"...In early 2015, the NSA apprised the FBI and other agencies of the DNC intrusions which the Dutch had secretly detected and on August 15, 2015, the Washington field office first alerted DNC technical staff of the compromise of their systems.[23] Much later, the lack of higher level communications between the political party and the government was seen by the former as an "unfathomable lapse" and it wasn't until April 2016 when legal authorizations to share sensitive technical data with the government finally apprised DNC leaders that their systems had been penetrated.[24].."

Democratic National Committee cyber attacks - Wikipedia


They did. Within 24 hours after being notified, the FBI averted the hack attack at the State Dept...

"...After a few months, in November 2014, the Dutch watched as the Russian hackers penetrated the computer network of the State Department. After being alerted to this by the Dutch intelligence chiefs, it took the Americans over 24 hours to avert the Russian attack, after a digital clash which, years later, at a discussion forum in Aspen, the Deputy Director of the NSA would refer to as hand-to-hand combat . Basing itself on intelligence sources, the Washington Post wrote that a Western ally had been of assistance..."

Dutch intelligence first to alert U.S. about Russian hack of Democratic Party | Nieuwsuur
They relied on many sources...in this case the Dutch were most helpful...

"... In the Summer of 2015, Dutch intelligence services were the first to alert their American counterparts about the cyberintrusion of the Democratic National Committee by Cozy Bear, a hacking group believed to be tied to the Russian government..."

Dutch intelligence first to alert U.S. about Russian hack of Democratic Party | Nieuwsuur

Crowdstrike is a cyber forensics company that was hired to find out who attacked the DNC server and stop it. But you seem to be blaming them for things that occured before they were hired and that's really not fair.

I blame CrowdStrike for inventing the election interference narrative designed to favor Hillary in the 2016 election and to further give the democrat party propagandists and promoters ammunition for continually attacking Trump from day 1. I'm not blaming CrowdStrike for the hacking. You're sources claim the NSA knew about Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear for years and knew those organizations were hacking into sensitive American targets, including Defense, Energy, the White House, and many others. The FBI knew the groups were hacking into the DNC long before the DNC found out on their own and called in CrowdStrike. What were our intelligence agencies waiting for, some bomb to fall? Why did they not inform the DNC long before the DNC found out on their own that their computers were hacked? And why now, after years of hacking dozens of different agencies these hackers are suddenly only supposedly interested in Trump, just as, it happens, were those at the DNC?

Something still smells fishy about all of this.
 
According to Treehouse and implied by other conservative sources, the Senate Intelligence Committee is a corrupt swamp, the least honest place in Congress.

Which is why they generally sided with Brennan and intelligence community swamp creatures, rather than with the truth.

According to the Treehouse? Is that the rights super secret he-man club where they never have to grow old or grow a brain?

A bi-partisan senate intelligence committee just blew apart Barr's little faux investigation for what it is.
* The Committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

* In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.

* The Committee found that the ICA provides a proper representation of the intelligence collected by CIA, NSA, and FBI on Russian interference in 2016, and this body of evidence supports the substance and judgments of the ICA.

* The Committee found that the information provided by Christopher Steele to FBI was not used in the body of the ICA or to support any of its analytic judgments. However, a summary of this material was included in Annex A as a compromise to FBI’s insistence that the information was responsive to the presidential tasking.


:lamo

Suck it righties. You got nothing and the only people getting "locked up" are Trumps buddies.
 
According to the Treehouse? Is that the rights super secret he-man club where they never have to grow old or grow a brain?

A bi-partisan senate intelligence committee just blew apart Barr's little faux investigation for what it is. :lamo

Suck it righties. You got nothing and the only people getting "locked up" are Trumps buddies.

Give it up.

You have zero credibility.
 
Give it up.

You have zero credibility.

I dont work in government. The credibility you're questioning is that of the bi-partisan senate intelligence committee, the DOJ, the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, the State Dept.... nearly the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States.
 
Give it up.

You have zero credibility.

The credibility you're questioning is that of the bi-partisan senate intelligence committee, the DOJ, the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, the State Dept.... nearly the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States.

Bulls***. I'm questioning the integrity of the criminals who participated in the abuse of power, mostly higher ups in these agencies.

And quite a number of former, honest FBI and CIA officials have spoken out in outrage about it.

Some present lower FBI agents and others have spoken out, but ex-agents and others have noted that people not only risk ending their careers, but losing their pensions if they're caught leaking the truth about it, so they are afraid to.

And not that you know, it was NSA Chief who is the hero who first blew the whistle on some of these crimes.

Go right ahead and play dumb. Durham's investigation will come crashing to an end at some point.
 
Bulls***. I'm questioning the integrity of the criminals who participated in the abuse of power, mostly higher ups in these agencies.

And quite a number of former, honest FBI and CIA officials have spoken out in outrage about it.

Some present lower FBI agents and others have spoken out, but ex-agents and others have noted that people not only risk ending their careers, but losing their pensions if they're caught leaking the truth about it, so they are afraid to.

And not that you know, it was NSA Chief who is the hero who first blew the whistle on some of these crimes.

Go right ahead and play dumb. Durham's investigation will come crashing to an end at some point.

You have no facts. Only supposition and speculation. Using colored text didn't help hide the fact that your posts are devoid of any relevant information. Durham hasn't provided **** and the senate intelligence report just snipped the balls off his investigation.
 
“As part of the editing process, however, we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties," The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote in a lengthy editor's note added to the article.

“We have also learned since publication, from longtime VIPS member Thomas Drake, that there is a dispute among VIPS members themselves about the July 24 memo. This is not the first time a VIPS report has been internally disputed, but it is the first time one has been released over the substantive objections of several VIPS members,” she wrote
The Nation adds lengthy editor's note to story questioning DNC hack | TheHill

Of course we know that bogus allegation is false, because they just told you it was 3 years ago. But the conspiracy theory doesn't die does it? That's the beauty of fake news.

But everyone with a brain should remember that this was EARLY on in the investigation...way before the entire forensic chain of Russian hacking was laid out in at least declassified detail in the completed Mueller report. Which ISP they used, from which terminals, etc...they got it all. After this bogus claim from VIPS carried by the Nation...FBI figured it all out and charged the Hackers in full detail.

And second, they should also note that this "possibility" they are describing, is without evidence. ANY hack, without evidence, can be said to "possibly have been done with a thumb drive!". They have no evidence of that, at all.

The only thing they had evidence of was high transfer speeds. They falsely claimed that could only be done with a USB drive, and they had to retract that false claim. There was no evidence at all that it "was a thumb drive", the only evidence was high transfer speeds!! Bad VIPs and bad "The Nation".

And look at Marke, pushing this long debunked CT nonsense that got moved to CT forums twice on this very forum.
 
What is it you think about CrowdStrike that constitutes a conspiracy theory? Do you think Trump/Russian collusion obsessions by most democrats for more than 3 years were debunked conspiracy theories? Me too.

I quoted it, and told you twice I quoted your CT, and you are still asking? You aren't asking, that's trolling.
 
Back
Top Bottom