(07-17-2018 12:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:09 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  With each of these new revelations, it's going to be harder and harder to get anything into evidence on this. Is it 1 server or 140 servers or a cloud or something else? Somebody needs to define what was the system architecture and exactly what it is that was produced to the FBI, by whom, and under what controls. The more we get conflicting statements about what it was, the harder it is going to be to prove anything up as evidence. It's going to be hard enough to get it in now, with no proper chain of custody. This is not making it easier.

Of course, there are no plans to prove anything in court. If one of the indicted russians shows up in the US to contest the charges, Bueller will be this prepared.

BS


Mueller is months ahead of you.

Y all got him now

https://youtu.be/Q9jg0wDqebc

(07-17-2018 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, Mach, what is Mueller going to prove if he can't get the information from the servers into evidence?

Did you read the article?

Everything was imaged and provided to the FBI per the DNC and Crowdstrike.

Quote:When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

(07-17-2018 02:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, Mach, what is Mueller going to prove if he can't get the information from the servers into evidence?

Did you read the article?

Everything was imaged and provided to the FBI per the DNC and Crowdstrike.

Quote:When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

You obviously have no background on the legal requirements of evidence.

(07-17-2018 08:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Our opposition doesn’t believe in global warming, thinks the earth is 6000 years old, and thinks there was no Russian collusion in the last election and we are losing to them. I just shake my head and blame the fairness doctrine. Read the comment section in a gateway pundit article. The truth is under siege.

I don’t believe any of those things.

Hunh.

*shrugs, walks away*

(07-17-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 02:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, Mach, what is Mueller going to prove if he can't get the information from the servers into evidence?

Did you read the article?

Everything was imaged and provided to the FBI per the DNC and Crowdstrike.

Quote:When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

You obviously have no background on the legal requirements of evidence.

Did you read the article? Per the article, it's standard practice as you can't just take an entire organizations computer network leaving them unable to function. Especially a huge political organization months before an election.

(07-17-2018 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 02:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 02:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, Mach, what is Mueller going to prove if he can't get the information from the servers into evidence?

Did you read the article?

Everything was imaged and provided to the FBI per the DNC and Crowdstrike.

Quote:When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

You obviously have no background on the legal requirements of evidence.

Did you read the article? Per the article, it's standard practice as you can't just take an entire organizations computer network leaving them unable to function. Especially a huge political organization months before an election.

Nice strawman argument there Sparky. Not relevant to the point raised though. Sounds fun though....

(07-17-2018 08:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  No need to fear, George Nasif has the server.

Who’s George Nasif?

Now what? Lol

Can’t make this schit up

(07-17-2018 02:42 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  No need to fear, George Nasif has the server.

Who’s George Nasif?

Now what? Lol

Can’t make this schit up

Beats me, but either he has the server or he spends his days making fake files and folders. Would take a monumental effort looking at all his pics on Twitter, lol.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(07-17-2018 08:17 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  MUH CROWDSTRIKE!

I'm so glad these idiots arent in charge.

Yep, they give the Russians or Chinese or whomever is the SpyduJour the passwords to the DNC servers and want us to believe that they're really smart. That is really laughable.

(07-17-2018 11:31 AM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='Machiavelli' pid='15387513' dateline='1531835926']
You know the crazy thing. If Trump wasn’t so egotistical he would have given moderates and the GOP some cover. He could of standee there and looked Putin in the face and said. Don’t do it agin. The past is the past and we can’t change it but you “helping ‘e” is actually hurting my party and my country. Stop it!!!! But that would mean his election was tainted. His ego can’t stand it. He’s hurt himself in the eyes of everybody but his supporters. Our allies around the world looked on in horror.

Hmmm, "he's hurt himself in the eyes of everybody but his supporters."

...and who else exactly does he need? Oh, and before I forget, he's getting new supporters every day with this #Walkaway movement. They've realized how stinky the Demons are and they're exiting stage left pretty fast.

Be afraid Machy, be vely, vely aflaid on 2020 when Trump will win much more yugely than he did in 2016

(07-17-2018 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  At least I post links. Something that’s lacking with other posters on here. I just do google searches. I don’t lie. I have credible sources. Can’t say that for others.

Wait.

Didn’t you just post a VFNN article?

That’s now “credible”?

Wow

Unless the FBI computer forensic specialists examined the servers themselves to verify the accuracy of the data contained the report generated by the DNC's contractor is useless as evidence. There is no verifiable way to prove that the data contained within the report wasn't changed by a biased party, and Crowdstrike is a biased party due to it's incestuous relationship with the FBI and especially the Obama administration.

(07-17-2018 02:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, Mach, what is Mueller going to prove if he can't get the information from the servers into evidence?

Did you read the article?

Everything was imaged and provided to the FBI per the DNC and Crowdstrike.

Quote:When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

So...the FBI is lying? Interesting.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”[/quote]
[/quote]

So...the FBI is lying? Interesting.
[/quote]

No wonder Trump couldn't answer the question. He knows that the FBI is as crooked as the Russians.

(07-17-2018 03:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Unless the FBI computer forensic specialists examined the servers themselves to verify the accuracy of the data contained the report generated by the DNC's contractor is useless as evidence. There is no verifiable way to prove that the data contained within the report wasn't changed by a biased party, and Crowdstrike is a biased party due to it's incestuous relationship with the FBI and especially the Obama administration.

Type slower. Mach cant understand that when you type it that fast.

(07-17-2018 11:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 10:48 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  At least I post links. Something that’s lacking with other posters on here. I just do google searches. I don’t lie. I have credible sources. Can’t say that for others.

Stop with your unsupportable bullshyte. 95% of the threads started here have a link to an article. Whether it's credible or not depends on one's views, nothing more.

You Mach, for the longest time, were usually in the 5% that didn't post a link, perhaps because you were using a cell phone instead of a laptop.....dunno. Didn't bother me when you failed to post a link, especially if you couldn't.

What does bother me is you spouting bs about everyone else when it was you who was usually guilty.

Here I used the quote button!!1. Lookie lookie wkuy


Btw..... tech you are full of it.

I make a point to cite texts.

Read the article RWT posted and I have posted again. This is why you guys are full of crap and so is your argument.

And you're relying on the filings from a clearly biased (of course) lawsuit for your "source".

"according to the figures in the DNC’s civil lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign."

C'mon, a lawsuit against Russia and the winning campaign is the Gospel truth?

Try harder, Mach. Try harder.

(07-17-2018 02:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 02:42 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  No need to fear, George Nasif has the server.

Who’s George Nasif?

Now what? Lol

Can’t make this schit up

Beats me, but either he has the server or he spends his days making fake files and folders. Would take a monumental effort looking at all his pics on Twitter, lol.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yea, okay. I thought it might be one of these "guys" you follow or something. Before all this mess I had never even heardd of characters like J3ster, things like 4chan, a bit of this thing called Redditt, etc.

Didn't know if this guy was a poormans Asange or something. Interesting, if true...

(07-17-2018 02:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, Mach, what is Mueller going to prove if he can't get the information from the servers into evidence?

Did you read the article?
Everything was imaged and provided to the FBI per the DNC and Crowdstrike.

Quote:When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.
Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

Not questioning the possibility or commonality of the process. But here’s the problem. That presumes that the cyber investigators are independent third parties—either law enforcement or other independent investigators. CrowdStrike is very likely not sufficiently independent. So how do you prove that the copy they provided is true and correct and complete? The only way is to rely on Crowdstrike’s independence, which doesn’t exist. I think getting anything admitted based on a copy provided by CrowdStrike is going to be problematic. And the fact that it can be done or is normally done does not get you over the evidentiary hurdle.

Interestingly, that’s probably good enough for intel, and this has been approached as an intel investigation. But intel is about getting as much data as you can and making your best guess. You don’t wait for formalities. Evidence is different. You can’t cut the corners that you have to in gathering evidence.

(07-17-2018 03:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Unless the FBI computer forensic specialists examined the servers themselves to verify the accuracy of the data contained the report generated by the DNC's contractor is useless as evidence. There is no verifiable way to prove that the data contained within the report wasn't changed by a biased party, and Crowdstrike is a biased party due to it's incestuous relationship with the FBI and especially the Obama administration.

Yea, this is beyond ridiculous. Hell, they could have just made the whole damn thing up, even months in advance as part of this "evidence" to provide cover and "legitimacy" to the insurance policy.

Why not? they made up the Keep the Cank clean docs weeks if not months before even talking to her, with her immunized co-conspirators in tow to aid as counsel. They used a made up report by Fusion and Bruce Ohrs wife as grounds for FISA warrants.

Why not just make up some convoluted ROOOSKIES!!! ruse to ensure she gets in one way or another? Don't see how there's any way now-years old materials are allowed, especially after it's acknowledged it's been phished by potentially bad actors, was given unfettered access to it by the McDonalds employee, and lord knows who else.

Can't admit the taint!

(07-17-2018 09:04 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 09:00 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:50 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:41 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Provide me with a signed affadavit that it was cloud based. Also have them explain how a cloud based system was able to dump the entirety of the email data into a thumb drive at the velocity of a direct PC to USB connection. Also, give us the name of the numbnut squad in charge of the "cloud of servers" so we can ask them who downloaded the entire email database, and what profile was used to do so.

Please provide a link for these assertions.

They've been provided on this site when it occurred. Go find them and do your research before starting garbage threads.

(07-17-2018 08:55 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 08:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The RNC was also hacked.


Washington (CNN)Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/...index.html


They ran a cyber warfare campaign against us with the help of Cambridge Analytica.


The dirt they have on the GOP is why they are complicit. They have an asset in the big chair and dirt on the people who should be investigating him.

Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked."

Holy Moly..... I just gave you the link. Provide one yourself.

Give me a link where the actual name of the top intelligence official is listed, who said the RNC was hacked. Because you were provided one where Comey said they werent. If Brennan wants to lie, he needs to not be an anonymous source.

Brennen voted for the Communist party candidate and gets on Obamas intelligence staff . That sounds about right with Zero.