CNN admits Russian collusion was Fake

@metal-brain said
Yes, because it is true.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_president_under_oath_no_proof_of_russia_dnc_hack_510974.html#!

What they said before they were under oath is irrelevant. They were not under threat of committing perjury when they lied. When under threat of committing perjury they admitted otherwise.

Real Clear Politics is a credi ...[text shortened]... en_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html#!

The article consistently lies by claiming Crowdstrike found "no evidence" when even the article concedes that Henry, the Crowdstrike CEO said, under oath:

""There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network."

AND:

" Henry said, "but what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state." In its investigation, Henry said, CrowdStrike "saw activity that we believed was consistent with activity we'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government. … We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government."

From your own oft-quoted article, which you obviously didn't read in depth.

@no1marauder said
The article consistently lies by claiming Crowdstrike found "no evidence" when even the article concedes that Henry, the Crowdstrike CEO said, under oath:

""There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network."

AND:

" Henry said, "but what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated wi ...[text shortened]... Russian Government."

From your own oft-quoted article, which you obviously didn't read in depth.

Circumstantial?
LOL!

In other words, not really evidence. You are an idiot!

@metal-brain said
Circumstantial?
LOL!

In other words, not really evidence. You are an idiot!

You're a moron if you think circumstantial evidence isn't "really evidence". Learn something, idiot:

"circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial; the accused may have been shooting at the escaping killer or merely have been a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer had dropped it.

The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. "

https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

The author of your article was relying on right wing gullibility and stupidity and, as usual, he was not disappointed by fools like yourself.

The bottom line is that the central contention of your article, which you have endlessly parroted i.e.

"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 emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server." is false. It acknowledged no such thing and indeed has repeatedly and consistently maintained the opposite.

@no1marauder said
You're a moron if you think circumstantial evidence isn't "really evidence". Learn something, idiot:

"circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only que ...[text shortened]... e. It acknowledged no such thing and indeed has repeatedly and consistently maintained the opposite.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. That means it is NOT iron clad evidence. This is how I know you are not a lawyer. You can lie all you want, but if I create an entire thread called "circumstantial evidence" and I call on sh76 (a real lawyer) to weigh in he will tell you exactly what I said and back it up with actual law.

You are on a weak branch and you ought to know it. If I were you I would give up on bluffing. You are not good at it. You have already lost this one, you just don't want to admit it yet.

sh76, what is your expert opinion? Can you believe this bluffing from no1 idiot?

@metal-brain said
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. That means it is NOT iron clad evidence. This is how I know you are not a lawyer. You can lie all you want, but if I create an entire thread called "circumstantial evidence" and I call on sh76 (a real lawyer) to weigh in he will tell you exactly what I said and back it up with actual law.

You are on a weak branch and you ou ...[text shortened]... to admit it yet.

sh76, what is your expert opinion? Can you believe this bluffing from no1 idiot?

You think sh76 will tell you circumstantial evidence is "not really evidence"?

You're even more stubbornly stupid then I thought.

@no1marauder said
You think sh76 will tell you circumstantial evidence is "not really evidence"?

You're even more stubbornly stupid then I thought.

Crowdstrike had to admit they didn't really have evidence, didn't they?
They only admitted it under threat of perjury though. Funny how being under oath changed their tune.

BTW, Dmitri Alperovitch is a co founder of Crowdstrike and he was born in Russia.
Does your anti Russia paranoia concern you with him colluding with Mueller? I thought meeting Russians was bad for some unknown reason that only democrats might know.

@metal-brain said
Crowdstrike had to admit they didn't really have evidence, didn't they?
They only admitted it under threat of perjury though. Funny how being under oath changed their tune.

They never admitted they "didn't really have evidence". That is a falsehood that you keep repeating even though I have unequivocally shown it to be not true.

BTW, how would you know whether sh76 is a lawyer or not? You have no direct evidence, do you? So you have to rely on indirect evidence which inferentially supports the conclusion that he is or isn't a lawyer, don't you?

Do you know what type of evidence that is called?

@no1marauder said
They never admitted they "didn't really have evidence". That is a falsehood that you keep repeating even though I have unequivocally shown it to be not true.

BTW, how would you know whether sh76 is a lawyer or not? You have no direct evidence, do you? So you have to rely on indirect evidence which inferentially supports the conclusion that he is or isn't a lawyer, don't you?

Do you know what type of evidence that is called?

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry admitted it under oath.

Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_president_under_oath_no_proof_of_russia_dnc_hack_510974.html#!

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."

Are you denying Henry’s 2017 testimony took place? You don't think I can find the House Intelligence Committee transcript and prove it? How confident are you of that? Enough to make a bet on it? I am.

@metal-brain said
CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry admitted it under oath.

Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_pre ...[text shortened]... Committee transcript and prove it? How confident are you of that? Enough to make a bet on it? I am.

Not a single one of the statements is an admission that Crowdstrike had "no evidence" for reasons already explained. That's you can't get this through your thick skull is your problem.

@no1marauder said
Not a single one of the statements is an admission that Crowdstrike had "no evidence" for reasons already explained. That's you can't get this through your thick skull is your problem.

Read much?
Here is what he said:

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

No evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. He even said "no evidence". Exact quote. You can't get this through your thick skull.

@metal-brain said
Read much?
Here is what he said:

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

No evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. He even said "no evidence". Exact quote. You can't get this through your thick skull.

Circumstantial evidence is not "no evidence". You can't have both. Sounds like lying to me.

Maybe you should learn to read.

@suzianne said
Circumstantial evidence is not "no evidence". You can't have both. Sounds like lying to me.

Maybe you should learn to read.

Tell that to Shawn Henry. Here is part of his testimony under oath again:

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

Maybe you should learn to read. He said both in the same sentence, denier of facts.

@metal-brain said
Perjury is not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing because memory is not perfect. Just because someone makes a statement that is not true does not mean it is intentional.

Once again. What did George P. do that was nefarious? If you cannot answer that question you have nothing. So far you have refused to answer that question.

I can see your argument that maybe the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but crimes were committed. It's in the definition.

Shouldn't we leave the judgement of intentional criminality to the multiple judges and courtrooms?

This isn't and wasn't a one-off incident. Over 100 charges. Multiple judges reviewed the evidence. There were hours and hours of testimony. I'm not going to read through the transcripts and line it up with what the law says (because I'm not a judge).

If federal judges decide that all these crimes were committed, and that the conduct warranted prison time, I'm good with that.

It's not fake. Serious, professional people reviewed evidence and ruled that crimes among top Trump campaign officials related to contact with Russian officials and lying under oath warranted prison time.

@wildgrass said
I can see your argument that maybe the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but crimes were committed. It's in the definition.

Shouldn't we leave the judgement of intentional criminality to the multiple judges and courtrooms?

This isn't and wasn't a one-off incident. Over 100 charges. Multiple judges reviewed the evidence. There were hours and hours of testimony. I'm not ...[text shortened]... aign officials related to contact with Russian officials and lying under oath warranted prison time.

What about Kevin Clinesmith?

Clinesmith altered an email from the CIA to the GCO, in which Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was described as a source for the agency, to say he was not a source – which cleared the way for the FBI to request a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Page as a “Russian agent” and, through him, the Trump campaign.

A crime was committed there too, but he got no prison time. Why did the judge give Kevin Clinesmith the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to break the law?
George P. not remembering dates is far less serious, yet he got 12 days. Was the judge bribed to let Kevin Clinesmith off easy? Was it because the judge is a democrat?

The so called justice is fake. There is a clear double standard being applied and you are condoning it because of partisan bias.

@metal-brain said
What about Kevin Clinesmith?

Clinesmith altered an email from the CIA to the GCO, in which Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was described as a source for the agency, to say he was not a source – which cleared the way for the FBI to request a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Page as a “Russian agent” and, through him, the Trump campaign.
...[text shortened]... e. There is a clear double standard being applied and you are condoning it because of partisan bias.

Perjury has a very clear definition in the law. It is not "not remembering dates." The 5th amendment exists for a good reason.

Is this the first time you're learning about double standards? Do you believe that the existence of a double standard makes something fake. That's absurd.

A double standard does not make something fake. You are comparing a single individual who got away with an alleged crime (it happens a lot) but more than a dozen people connected to the Trump campaign were all indicted or plead guilty to criminal activity. Its not fake.