13 Dec 21
@no1marauder saidSTOP LYING!
I'm not going to waste further time with this BS. I've provided the Crowdstrike link (https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/) numerous times showing your RCP opinion piece was inaccurate and misleading.
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."
Your claim of "overwhelming" evidence is a lie and you know it.
13 Dec 21
@no1marauder saidDWS conspired to rig the election against Sanders.
It was not because Julian Assange selflessly decided to reveal that the DNC favored HRC over Bernie so that the primaries could be run more "fairly". The primaries were already over.
She resigned because the Sanders wing wanted her out and the DNC decided it was best for party unity for her to go after stolen emails revealed some rather embarrassing statements she made to other officials.
You don't even know what those emails said, do you?
Do you expect us to believe it was a big conspiracy to get rid of her over nothing? Look who is being conspiratorial. The big Sanders conspiracy theory. LOL!
@metal-brain saidHe enabled Russian meddling. Don't be a fool.
STOP LYING!
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 t ...[text shortened]... ee: "I can't say based on that."
Your claim of "overwhelming" evidence is a lie and you know it.
13 Dec 21
@metal-brain saidPrisons are full of the "innocent".
He denied that and crowdstrike admitted they had no evidence Russia hacked the DNC. You are in denial.
13 Dec 21
@Metal-Brain
In other words, don't answer the question, just come up with another non sequitur, just grab some distraction, any distraction will do since you don't care about truth, any conspiracy theory and another nutjob and you have your new post.
13 Dec 21
@sonhouse saidYou have no evidence Russia hacked the DNC.
@Metal-Brain
In other words, don't answer the question, just come up with another non sequitur, just grab some distraction, any distraction will do since you don't care about truth, any conspiracy theory and another nutjob and you have your new post.
Wikileaks has implied it was Seth Rich in several ways.
It was Seth Rich, not Russia.
@metal-brain saidCrowdstrike says there is overwhelming evidence the Russian government hacked the DNC e-mails. They say they have circumstantial evidence the emails were exfiltrated. Of course, that's only common sense; it's hardly plausible that someone would go through all the trouble of hacking into the DNC and other Democratic databases only to neglect to actually take the data.
STOP LYING!
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 t ...[text shortened]... ee: "I can't say based on that."
Your claim of "overwhelming" evidence is a lie and you know it.
Besides, those very same emails wound up being published by Wikileaks so, of course, they were "exfiltrated". On top of that, months before they were published George Papadopoulos was told that the Russian government had thousands of emails that were damaging to HRC (a fact he repeated to an Australian diplomat again months before the emails were published).
The facts are overwhelming and the scurrilous, evidence free claim that Seth Rich had anything to do with it is a convenient, uncheckable lie because he is dead. It is to Assange's lasting discredit that he implied Rich's involvement though he knew differently.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
13 Dec 21
@sonhouse saidWriting something?
@Metal-Brain
In other words, don't answer the question, just come up with another non sequitur, just grab some distraction, any distraction will do since you don't care about truth, any conspiracy theory and another nutjob and you have your new post.
Sounds autobiographical.
13 Dec 21
@no1marauder said"Crowdstrike says there is overwhelming evidence the Russian government hacked the DNC e-mails"
Crowdstrike says there is overwhelming evidence the Russian government hacked the DNC e-mails. They say they have circumstantial evidence the emails were exfiltrated. Of course, that's only common sense; it's hardly plausible that someone would go through all the trouble of hacking into the DNC and other Democratic databases only to neglect to actually take the data.
B ...[text shortened]... It is to Assange's lasting discredit that he implied Rich's involvement though he knew differently.
They do not say that anymore. Crowdstrike said they didn't have evidence under oath. What they said before they were under oath and under threat of perjury is irrelevant.
Circumstantial evidence is not overwhelming evidence. If circumstantial evidence was worth a crap I would be claiming I have evidence Bill Gates is implementing his plan to depopulate the planet. I have circumstantial evidence of that, but it still would never convince you.
I can prove intent. That is circumstantial evidence. See the documentary "Who is Bill Gates".
@metal-brain saidYou're lying again. The Crowdstrike article I provided was written years after the testimony you keep claiming said something it didn't. In fact, it was written to disprove the spurious claims in the RCP article and other places after the testimony was made public.
"Crowdstrike says there is overwhelming evidence the Russian government hacked the DNC e-mails"
They do not say that anymore. Crowdstrike said they didn't have evidence under oath. What they said before they were under oath and under threat of perjury is irrelevant.
Circumstantial evidence is not overwhelming evidence. If circumstantial evidence was worth a crap I w ...[text shortened]... ou.
I can prove intent. That is circumstantial evidence. See the documentary "Who is Bill Gates".
We already went through your stupid claim that circumstantial evidence isn't "real" evidence. You were made to look like a fool then; do you really want to insist on being made a fool of again?
Your nutty Bill Gates conspiracy theories aren't worth wasting time on.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
14 Dec 21
@suzianne saidEspecially in the USA, and particularly on death row. It doesn't look very good, defending that.
Prisons are full of the "innocent".
Julian Assange laid bare the corruption of the USA government. He should be a hero to anyone who loves freedom, but apparently Americans only love the freedom of the powerful, not that of the meek.