CNN admits Russian collusion was Fake

@sonhouse said
@no1marauder
I think he is a paid Russian operative

@no1marauder said
Repeating over and over a falsehood from an article does not make it true.

Crowdstrike never said it had "no evidence" as you well know.

@metal-brain said
realclearpolitics is lying?
Is that what you are claiming?

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html#!

@no1marauder said
Yes, the writer of that article is making a false statement when he claims Crowdstrike's CEO said in sworn testimony that his company had "no evidence" that the Russians hacked the DNC.

It is explained in the Crowdstrike link I provided why that claim is false. Circumstantial evidence is evidence even if there is no actual observation of the data being stolen (and such ...[text shortened]... ct evidence is rare in a hacking case as the Crowdstrike CEO clearly stated in his sworn testimony).

@metal-brain said
What Crowdstrike link?

Is that before or after Crowdstrike admitted they had no evidence Russia hacked the DNC under oath and under threat of perjury?

You question the credibility of realpolitics?

@no1marauder said
The one I gave a page ago.

They never "admitted" any such thing.

RCP publishes many opinion pieces from various sources; it does not vouch for their veracity.

@metal-brain said
Who is they?
You didn't provide a link a page ago.

@no1marauder said
Crowdstrike.

Yes I did.

@metal-brain said
No you didn't. Stop lying.

You provided no link on this page or the previous page. Anybody on here can see that.

@no1marauder said
I not only provided the link, but I quoted several paragraphs from it! You even responded to the post by quoting it!

What the hell is wrong with you?

@metal-brain said
Then post it again... if it exists.
I'll bet it doesn't provide any proof if it does exist. I think I would have remembered it if it was relevant. I'm calling your bluff.

@no1marauder said
"Crowdstrike's work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the Record Straight". June 5, 2020

Link on the prior page in a post of mine you responded to.

@metal-brain said
And I replied with this:

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, privately acknowledged more than two years ago that it had no evidence that Russian hackers stole emai ...[text shortened]... e you denying Crowdstrike admitted under oath they had no evidence Russia hacked the DNC? Yes or no?

@no1marauder said
You keep posting over and over and over again the same link to the same article using the same quote, that is a falsehood.

Yes, I am denying, as Crowdstrike does in the link I provided you, that they "admitted under oath they had no evidence Russia hacked the DNC". They have consistently said the opposite.

I have tried to eliminate my use of lengthy quotes from articles based on the instructions Russ provided for Forum use, but since MB obviously can't understand anything other than debunked conspiracy sites, here goes:

"Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, the Intelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”

Did CrowdStrike see in real-time the adversaries exfiltrate data and emails from the DNC network?

No and that’s typical for incident response cases. In the vast majority of cyber investigations, incident responders don’t witness exfiltration in real-time. In fact, often we are called in after theft has taken place. We collect forensics, evidence of prior activity on the network, map where the adversary has gained access and prepare remediation plans.

In this particular case, CrowdStrike saw circumstantial evidence of data exfiltration from the DNC network. As a reference point circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence such as DNA analysis or fingerprints that are fully admissible in courts.

Shawn Henry stated in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32 of the testimony):

“Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC’ we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.’

and circumstantial evidence that data was taken as he states on page 75 ”so there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken” and page 76:

“MR. HENRY: So, to go back, because I think it’s important to characterize this. We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’ We said that the data Ieft based on the circumstantial evidence. That was a conclusion that we made. 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.”

On page 32 of the testimony, Henry also explains that

“We don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened” and “we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

So the answer to your question is and always has been "no".