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

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have told the White House they now have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee, according to federal officials who have been briefed on the evidence.

Preliminary conclusions were discussed on Thursday at a weekly cyberintelligence meeting for senior officials. The Crowdstrike report, supported by several other firms that have examined the same bits of code and telltale “metadata” left on documents that were released before WikiLeaks’ publication of the larger trove, concludes that the Federal Security Service, known as the F.S.B., entered the committee’s networks last summer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/...y-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html

 

Crowstrike had the server and provided the evidence to the FBI, who never even had the server. Crowdstrike stated that they had no clear evidence it was a hack.

They said this under oath.

 

Exactly. He quotes from wiki and ignores the timeframe.

 

I guess Crowdstrike LIED when they said that the DNC server was hacked from overseas.

LOLOLOL!!!

 

prove it.

ive never heard such a thing and the NYT report says you're wrong

 

To me it sounds like malicious prosecution, which is a tort, not a crime. Flynn could sue some of these people in their individual capacities. Suing the federal government falls under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2674

I think the government should compensate Flynn, but I don't know how much. Five million? What would you award him if you were on a jury and hear all this?

 

Crowdstrike announces that the DNC was hacked from overseas

https://www.pcworld.com/article/308...breach-dnc-computers-steal-data-on-trump.html

 

And he is getting all worked about it is the telltale that he smells smoke while we have been smelling a rat for years.

 

September 25, 2019 Update:

With regards to our investigation of the DNC hack in 2016, we provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI. As we’ve stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community.

June 15, 2016 UPDATE:

CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016. On June 15, 2016 a blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from the DNC.

Whether or not this posting is part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign, we are exploring the documents’ authenticity and origin. Regardless, these claims do nothing to lessen our findings relating to the Russian government’s involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community.


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

 

It was the DNC that said that, via Crowdstrike, who worked for the DNC. Also:

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public. The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.

Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, 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.

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."
  

We now know that Mueller knew there was no collusion before the witch hunt started and we know the DNC may not have even been hacked by the Russians. The real hackers and mischief makers may have been the DNC themselves.

 

CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016.

With regards to our investigation of the DNC hack in 2016, we provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI. As we’ve stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community.

 

That is not what they said under oath.

They lied to the public, much like Mueller and the DNC did.

https://justthenews.com/government/...-crowdstrike-unsure-if-fbi-confirmed-russians

 

Crowdstrike is fake news.

and here is the actual transcript. lol

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

 

LOLOL!!!

everything Trump disagrees with, is fake news huh?

LOL!!!

 

The transcript proves it. Proves you listened to them and they were feeding you fake news. lol

Have you read the transcript? Crowdstrike lied to the public while behind closed doors, told a different story.

 

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: 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.

 

Under oath, he testified:

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

 

MR' HENRY: There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the -- what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state.

 

MR' HENRY: * of the Russians with their fingers on a keyboard, but the activities were consistent with what we'd seen previously, targeting other -- the state Department, for example, the Joint chiefs, other governments, western governments. And it was consistent with what we'd seen previously and associated with the Russian Government

 

So what? Lots of viruses and hacking techniques come out that region.

 

MR. HENRy: To be clear, our goal, my goal was to protect the client. we were hired to protect the client. We identified an adversary there. The goal was to make sure that the adversary was removed and the client had a clean environment with which to work.

 

So what, lots of viruses and hacking techniques come out of that area. Also, once a script kitty is produced, in say Russia, it can be modified anywhere and still look like it came out of Russia. There is a whole set of documents regarding this.

again, under oath, no evidence is what he said.

 

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'