Pelosi: Drunk with power or just drunk?

[WEATHER53]

Speaker Pelosi doesn't drink alcohol. Google it...

Most alcoholics and pill poppers deny it.

 

[j-mac]

Speaker Pelosi doesn't drink alcohol. Google it...

Well, then she clearly had a stroke...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The FBI Subpoenas evidence and in response, democrats delete 33,000 emails, vaporize the server and say "Talk to Crowdstrike"

Why is Flynn jammed up? Remind me again please

"The indictments of felonious Democrats are absent because Republicans are stupid." - Paul Craig Roberts

 

[Lakhota]

Speaker Pelosi doesn't drink alcohol. Google it...

Most alcoholics and pill poppers deny it.

Her daughter confirms it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Speaker Pelosi doesn't drink alcohol. Google it...

Well, then she clearly had a stroke...

It could be the Botox, that's poison

 

[j-mac]

You are aware that the Steele Dossier was Kremlin sourced disinformation produce to try to affect first the election then to drive Trump from office?

As for whether the Russians hacked the servers, we only have Crowd Strike's (another Hillary Contractor like Steele) word for it. Why did the DNC refuse to allow the FBI to examine the Hard Drives so we would know for sure if Russia was responsible?

That’s why the Steele dossier wasn’t used to affect the election. The Clinton campaign wasn’t going to play Russia’s game.

Trump on the other hand has no such ethical constraint..

Complete nonsense. Obama repeatedly ridiculed the very idea that Russia could affect the outcome of the election, because he thought Hillary was a shoo-in and Hillary repeated stated that to not the accept the results of the election as valid was the most unreasonable thing imaginable. Both did so assuming that Hillary was on her way to a landslide. Yet here you are pretending they were restrained by ethics. Even you know better, so why the pretense?

... Do you seriously think Crowdstrike is the only organization that came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC? Did you miss the findings of the IC or the Mueller report?

Only Crowdstrike, another Hillary contractor, examined the drives. All these others folks are just laundering Crowd Strikes findings. Are you seriously going to tell me that this is news to you?

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

 

[Lakhota]

Speaker Pelosi doesn't drink alcohol. Google it...

Well, then she clearly had a stroke...

Funny. She's a genius compared to Trump*.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Speaker Pelosi doesn't drink alcohol. Google it...

Most alcoholics and pill poppers deny it.

Her daughter confirms it.

The same daughter that said her Mom was a homicidal psychopath?

 

[j-mac]

Speaker Pelosi doesn't drink alcohol. Google it...

Well, then she clearly had a stroke...

Funny. She's a genius compared to Trump*.

Did you say Penius?

 

[Leo123]

Moscow Mitch, is a Russian asset..... thus the name, Moscow Mitch!!!!

BISS Meh

 

[colfax_m]

That’s why the Steele dossier wasn’t used to affect the election. The Clinton campaign wasn’t going to play Russia’s game.

Trump on the other hand has no such ethical constraint..

Complete nonsense. Obama repeatedly ridiculed the very idea that Russia could affect the outcome of the election, because he thought Hillary was a shoo-in and Hillary repeated stated that to not the accept the results of the election as valid was the most unreasonable thing imaginable. Both did so assuming that Hillary was on her way to a landslide. Yet here you are pretending they were restrained by ethics. Even you know better, so why the pretense?

... Do you seriously think Crowdstrike is the only organization that came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC? Did you miss the findings of the IC or the Mueller report?

Only Crowdstrike, another Hillary contractor, examined the drives. All these others folks are just laundering Crowd Strikes findings. Are you seriously going to tell me that this is news to you?

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

No. They reformatted them and wiped the malware off.

That’s why you make a forensic copy to analyze.

This is pretty much standard throughout industry. Do you think people have time to shut down their operation so the FBI can tell you what you already know?

 

[Leo123]

PELOSI UNHINGED

Dan Bongino concisely disposes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s unhinged take on the ongoing impeachment saga (embedded video). Those of us who avoid the Sunday morning gabfests missed this revealing glimpse into the mind of the Dems’ strategic genius and legislative mastermind. The video clip puts me in mind of a variation of George Wallaces’s infamous vow of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” In Pelosi’s case, it would be “impeachment now, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever.”

This is must viewing. You really have to see it.

Reminder: This woman is second in the line of presidential succession.

Quotable quote:

“The President of the United States is in complete denial about Russia’s role. As I have said, in terms of this president, all roads lead to Putin. He said he’s not going to accept the assessment of our own intelligence agencies that they were very much involved in 2016 election, that 24/7, they are still engaged. He’s trying to blame on Ukraine and this silliness that has been debunked again and again — but he and his folks still keep advancing it. Everything that he has done, whether it’s in Syria vis a vis the Turks, whether it’s in Ukraine in terms of withholding assistance as they try to fight the Russians, his denial about their role in our election then and now, all roads lead to Putin. And sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell too. What’s he — why is he an accomplice to all of that?”​

Pam Key/Breitbart.

This is a deeply troubled woman who has been relegated to trafficking in discredited conspiracy theories in order to try and save her tattered reputation. pic.twitter.com/vXyhF8YNHN

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) January 13, 2020

Dan Bongino.....

Could you get a blowhard partisan more than him?

You all, and DJT traffic in nothing but conspiracy. If Jesus Christ were standing in front of you, and told you something, and then Trump came and told you what Christ said was fake news, y'all would side with Trump, and immediately call what Jesus told you, fake news.

You could not convince me, that this is not precisely what y'all would do. Seriously.

If Trump walked on water you'd would scream Trump can't swim!! Now, go back to bed.

 

[Zorro!]

You are aware that the Steele Dossier was Kremlin sourced disinformation produce to try to affect first the election then to drive Trump from office?

As for whether the Russians hacked the servers, we only have Crowd Strike's (another Hillary Contractor like Steele) word for it. Why did the DNC refuse to allow the FBI to examine the Hard Drives so we would know for sure if Russia was responsible?

That’s why the Steele dossier wasn’t used to affect the election. The Clinton campaign wasn’t going to play Russia’s game.

Trump on the other hand has no such ethical constraint..

Complete nonsense. Obama repeatedly ridiculed the very idea that Russia could affect the outcome of the election, because he thought Hillary was a shoo-in and Hillary repeated stated that to not the accept the results of the election as valid was the most unreasonable thing imaginable. Both did so assuming that Hillary was on her way to a landslide. Yet here you are pretending they were restrained by ethics. Even you know better, so why the pretense?

... Do you seriously think Crowdstrike is the only organization that came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC? Did you miss the findings of the IC or the Mueller report?

Only Crowdstrike, another Hillary contractor, examined the drives. All these others folks are just laundering Crowd Strikes findings. Are you seriously going to tell me that this is news to you?

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue...

No. It's completely true. You can't walk into court without accusations like this and no examination of the hard drives.

... Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?...

Here, use this copy made by a Hillary Clinton Campaign Vender, you know, like Christopher Steele was a Hillary Campaign Vender, the copy is just a good!

... The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

That's not evidence, that's an explanation for the LACK of evidence.

We know the Mueller report was not written by Mueller. During his under oath testimony, Dirty Bob revealed that he was unfamiliar with the facts of the case and the report that bore his name. So pretending he was in charge was yet another lie. One of his Democrat Clinton Donors and Hillary Campaign Lawyers that made up the witch hunt wrote the report. Noticing a pattern here? All your "evidence" traces back to Hillary Clinton.

Dirty Bob's report:

• Uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.

• The report's timeline of events defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

• There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.

• Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.

• U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.

• Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

• John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

The report’s use of that one word, “appear,” undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language used in his July 2018 indictment, which contained no such qualifier:

"It's certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller's indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later," says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. "It may be an example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller's exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusory assertions in court, he didn't have to worry about precision.

The report also concedes that Mueller’s team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges: how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested – without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer 2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."

Contrary to Mueller’s sweeping conclusions, the report itself is, at best, suggesting that the GRU, via its purported cutout Guccifer 2.0, may have transferred the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ndercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

The Wiesel wording reflects uncertainty. If they wanted certainty, they would have allowed the FBI to examine the drives!​

 

[j-mac]

Complete nonsense. Obama repeatedly ridiculed the very idea that Russia could affect the outcome of the election, because he thought Hillary was a shoo-in and Hillary repeated stated that to not the accept the results of the election as valid was the most unreasonable thing imaginable. Both did so assuming that Hillary was on her way to a landslide. Yet here you are pretending they were restrained by ethics. Even you know better, so why the pretense?
Only Crowdstrike, another Hillary contractor, examined the drives. All these others folks are just laundering Crowd Strikes findings. Are you seriously going to tell me that this is news to you?

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

No. They reformatted them and wiped the malware off.

That’s why you make a forensic copy to analyze.

This is pretty much standard throughout industry. Do you think people have time to shut down their operation so the FBI can tell you what you already know?

I think some hired company is NOT the FBI...Why is the DNC so scared to turn over the servers and the hard drives?

 

[Zorro!]

That’s why the Steele dossier wasn’t used to affect the election. The Clinton campaign wasn’t going to play Russia’s game.

Trump on the other hand has no such ethical constraint..

Complete nonsense. Obama repeatedly ridiculed the very idea that Russia could affect the outcome of the election, because he thought Hillary was a shoo-in and Hillary repeated stated that to not the accept the results of the election as valid was the most unreasonable thing imaginable. Both did so assuming that Hillary was on her way to a landslide. Yet here you are pretending they were restrained by ethics. Even you know better, so why the pretense?

... Do you seriously think Crowdstrike is the only organization that came to the conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC? Did you miss the findings of the IC or the Mueller report?

Only Crowdstrike, another Hillary contractor, examined the drives. All these others folks are just laundering Crowd Strikes findings. Are you seriously going to tell me that this is news to you?

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

Nope!

But a Hillary Contractor said so!

You remember Hillary, the one who smashed smart phones, hard drivers and bleach bitted what was left?

You can totally trust her, and her contractors, like Christopher Steele!

 

[Zorro!]

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

No. They reformatted them and wiped the malware off.

That’s why you make a forensic copy to analyze.

This is pretty much standard throughout industry. Do you think people have time to shut down their operation so the FBI can tell you what you already know?

I think some hired company is NOT the FBI...Why is the DNC so scared to turn over the servers and the hard drives?

Especially when they are hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. When you get to court either you have physically examined the systems in question or your have not.

Either you have the evidence in your possession or you do not.

They have neither, but they have lots of great explanations for the absence of physical evidence!

We don't have the physical evidence because they refused to turn it over.​

 

[colfax_m]

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

No. They reformatted them and wiped the malware off.

That’s why you make a forensic copy to analyze.

This is pretty much standard throughout industry. Do you think people have time to shut down their operation so the FBI can tell you what you already know?

I think some hired company is NOT the FBI...Why is the DNC so scared to turn over the servers and the hard drives?

I already answered your question. They were in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t have time to shut down their operation so the FBI can tear apart their server for no reason.

You make a forensic copy which is even more valuable than the hardware itself.

This is the way every major operation that is hacked handles it.

 

[Zorro!]

Complete nonsense. Obama repeatedly ridiculed the very idea that Russia could affect the outcome of the election, because he thought Hillary was a shoo-in and Hillary repeated stated that to not the accept the results of the election as valid was the most unreasonable thing imaginable. Both did so assuming that Hillary was on her way to a landslide. Yet here you are pretending they were restrained by ethics. Even you know better, so why the pretense?
Only Crowdstrike, another Hillary contractor, examined the drives. All these others folks are just laundering Crowd Strikes findings. Are you seriously going to tell me that this is news to you?

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

No. They reformatted them and wiped the malware off.

That’s why you make a forensic copy to analyze.

This is pretty much standard throughout industry. Do you think people have time to shut down their operation so the FBI can tell you what you already know?

Sure! And Hillary smashed hard drives and smart phones and bleach bitted the rest to protect those that might examine them from malware!

She's a giver!

There is no better anti-malware tool than a claw hammer!​

 

[colfax_m]

No. It's completely true. You can't walk into court without accusations like this and no examination of the hard drives.

Of course you can. Especially when you have mountains of corroborating evidence. Server logs. Traffic reports. Intelligence from other countries. You honestly think they physically having the hard drive is necessary? Why?

Here, use this copy made by a Hillary Clinton Campaign Vender, you know, like Christopher Steele was a Hillary Campaign Vender, the copy is just a good!

You’re dodging the question. A forensic copy is a bit by bit copy of the server including their configuration, caches and activity. It’s better than the physical drives in some cases. What do you need the actual hardware for?

That's not evidence, that's an explanation for the LACK of evidence.

You asked the question. I gave you the answer.

The report’s use of that one word, “appear,” undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language used in his July 2018 indictment, which contained no such qualifier:

That’s a really pathetic stretch. The evidence was sufficient for a grand jury to indict.

The report also concedes that Mueller’s team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges: how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested – without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer 2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."

What relevance is this?

 

[colfax_m]

Do you think that examining hard drives is the only way to determine who hacked the DNC?

For your conclusions to stand up in a court of law, you are damned right you need to physically examine the hard drives and retain custody of them, so they may also be examined by adversarial experts.

So, back to the question you dodged, why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI examine the hard drives? Why did the DNC act in such a manner that we only have a Hillary Campaign Vendors word for it?

FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers.

If it was unnecessary to see the servers, why did the FBI ask to?
If it was unnecessary to physically examine the servers, why did Crowd Strike examine them

Hard Drives Talk, BS Walks!​

That is completely untrue. Crowdstrike did exactly what any other security firm would do, make a forensic copy. What do you think they would learn from examining the physical hardware that they couldn’t from the forensic copy?

The DNC was in the middle of a huge campaign. They didn’t want the FBI to slow down their operation. This is pretty standard in the industry. People have work to do.

Oh, so they've turned it over since the campaign was over?

No. They reformatted them and wiped the malware off.

That’s why you make a forensic copy to analyze.

This is pretty much standard throughout industry. Do you think people have time to shut down their operation so the FBI can tell you what you already know?

Sure! And Hillary smashed hard drives and smart phones and bleach bitted the rest to protect those that might examine them from malware!

She's a giver!

There is no better anti-malware tool than a claw hammer!​

Did the FBI or DoJ ever state they were unable to attribute the source of the hack due to lack of access to the physical hardware?