Breaking: New FBI document confirms the Trump campaign was investigated without justification

False, we have been over this.

Here is the transcript that shows Crowdstrike never confirmed the DNC was hacked:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

• "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."

 

yep, the DNC was clearly hacked.

 

yep, Crowdstrike stated under oath, that the DNC was hacked.

 

DNC was hacked. Crowdstrike had 0 doubt about it

 

yep, Crowdstrike was 100% certain that the DNC was hacked.

no doubt about it

 

These are good articles, complete with facts and timelines:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...ling-emails-dnc-declassified-transcript-shows

Who is Crowdstrike and why are they so central to the false hacking narrative?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...s-hillary-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g

No proof:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...-hid-sworn-crowdstrike-testimony-over-2-years

a look inside hacking, timestamps and the false conclusions of Crowdstrike:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...ry-did-crowdstrike-plant-russian-evidence-dnc

Crowdstrike under oath:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

• "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."

 

Crowdstrike under oath, testifying with 100% confidence that the DNC was hacked with malicious software from overseas:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

Shawn Henry said when they gave their info the FBI, there was:

"l can tell you that the intelligence that we shared with them, including forensic information, indicators of compromise, which are pieces of malware, et cetera' we provided all of that to the FBl. starting in June of 2a16, we provided them the data that would have been of value to them'

"about the FBI and the investigation, that we did provide the FBI with information' They were conducting an investigation. whether they were feeding back information to the DNC or not, I don't know, but they were conducting and we provided them with a lot of the indicators, the malware, and other pieces of code that we took off of the computer network"

MR. HENRy: At the end of June, June 12th, when we did the remediation event, yes. But we also know that it is common for an adversary to try and reacquire a network when they're moved off. That's common knowredge in this business. so we had technology deployed that would help us identify if they were back in.

MR.HENRY:Wedid--We--tobeclear,We--ourtechnology-the attack, the second breach was in an environment that had not - did not have our technology deployed in to it. When the adversary,whomever that was, when they moved to one of the computers that had our technology, we alerted and recognized that there was another attack in the environment'

MR. HENRY: So we did - we did some forensic analysis in the environment. we deployed technology into the environment' into the network' software called Falcon that essentiatly looks at the processes that are running on different computers in the environment' we also looked historically at the environment, using a different piece of software to look backwards at what was happening in the environment' And we We'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government'

MR. STEWART oF UTAH: And can you identify that as being -- with a fair degree of confidence that it's associated with the Russian Government?

MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government.And our analysts that looked at it that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were ,and looking at the types of that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence.

 

Well done Ronstar. You have thoroughly owned this thread.

 

Don't leave yourself out Walter, you have just kicked butt defending the truth and justice in this thread. Would you like a medal pinned to your chest? lol

 

damn right I did!!!!

 

Damn right you did not. You don't appear to even know what the thread is about. It's whether there was justification to investigate the Trump campaign, not whether there was meddling by Russia.

 

he said I did.

 

i was responding to a comment in this thread. One that was repeated ad nauseum.

 

Sadly. They weave lies into what they think is the truth, repeat them until they believe them. Then get angry.

 

Do you believe that you have settled for all time, the question raised in the OP?

That's what I take "owning the thread" to mean.