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

Yes, protect the DNC by telling everyone publicly that they were hacked by THE RUSSIANS!!!!

RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!

lol

Behind closed doors under oath: No evidence.

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.

• 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."

 

MR. HENRY: I think -- I think so. I don't want to make an emphatic statement, because over the course of the next couple months, there were leaks of data. We were talking to people at the DNC. They were trying to identify what documents were being leaked. So there were certainly communications. I think we were monitoring their network. I mean, we still had our technology in their network. So I wouldn't say it ended. But, from a professional services or an incident response perspective, probably, but we still had engagement with them, because leading up to the election, we had concerns that the Russians were going to come back or somebody was going to try to access that environment. so we did provide monitoring throughout that period of time.

 

Henry makes it very clear that the DNC computers were indeed hacked.

its from the testimony u provideed

 

fake news, I just showed you what he said under oath. Here it is again:

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.

• 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."

 

MR. SCHIFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple follow up questions. Then lm going to turn it over to Mr. Castro. Welcome, and thank you for coming to testify. My colleague asked you whether the damage that was done to the DNC through the hack might have been mitigated had the DNC employed your services earlier' Do you know the date in which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC?

MR. HENRY: counseljust 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' MR. SCHIFF: And the indicators that it was exfiltrated, when does it indicate that would have taken place? MR. HENRY: Again, it's in the report. I believe -- I believe it was April of 2016. l,m confused on the date. I think it was April, but it's in the report' MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor'

 

Henry had indicators that the data was taken from the DNC servers.

however, they had NO DOUBT that Malware and other invasive software had been placed in the DNC servers, by foreign actors, most likely Russian

 

Yes, it appears Crowdstrike didn't have hard evidence that data from the DNC was stolen by the malware and other invasive programs that had attacked the DNC servers.

but they have NO doubt that the DNC servers were hacked and invaded, from abroad, with very strong hacking software, most likely from Russia.

 

They didn’t need to, they were spying on the hackers. Read the indictment.

 

They have no evidence it was hacked, they are only guessing. They said so.

 

LOL - fake news.

 

that is 100% false.

they testify under oath, again and again, that an international actor, a very sophisticated one, had installed malware and other spy software on the DNC computers

 

fake news. They testified under oath that they have no evidence the servers were hacked.

It could have been an inside job. Again:

• "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."

 

100% false.

crowdstrike testified under oath, numerous times, that the DNC servers had been invaded with malicious hacking software, used to steal data, and the date of the actual data theft had been set as 4/22/16.

 

The indictment includes evidence that could not have came from crowdstrike. An indictment that still stands btw

 

the document he gave us, is amazing.

we now have under oath testimony, from Crowdstrike, that the DNC was indeed hacked from overseas, most likely Russia.

i had no idea Crowdstrike went that far with their investigation and accusations.

 

Seems to me a lot of the posts here are insisting the Russians did some hacking or attempted hacking. That's a far cry from Trump's campaign colluding with the initiative.

 

fake news, they are guessing, only.

• "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."

what? lol

 

yes, the jury is out on collusion.

but hacking? Crowdstrike said under oath that the DNC was hacked from overseas, likely Russia.

they are experts on this

 

"Most likely"? After 3 years of investigation, this is all we get? Pretty thin soup.

But let's say "definitely," just for the sake of argument. Definitely Russia. Is that Trump's fault?

 

The evidence against the Russians hacking is pretty overwhelming and the more that gets declassified the more we know.

 

i think its real estate deals had something to do with that.

but yes, its great to know that Crowdstrike stated under oath that the DNC was definitely hacked and it was most likely done by Russia. They are experts on this kinda thing

 

Not true at all. There was no collusion and the there is no evidence that the DNC was hacked.

 

Crowdstrike stated, under oath, that the DNC was hacked from abroad, most likely Russia.
they are experts on this kinda thing

 

fake news.

 

What jury is out on collusion? What reasonable person will hypothesize that something is true until proved false?
Ever tried to prove a negative?