Russia bounty on US troops

#726
#726
NorthDallas40 said:
LMFAO a better publication because you like the story. Here’s the rest of the story on Foreign Policy. They are the least biased and high factual reporting rated. Suck it Trebeck.

Foreign Policy - Media Bias/Fact Check
Click to expand...

Foreign Affairs is peer reviewed and has been considered a primary source for foreign policy information for decades. It is focused on practice and theory and invites writers from all political stripes. Foreign Policy is more of a news magazine and it is not peer reviewed. Suck on that.
 
#727
#727
Purple Tiger said:
Foreign Affairs is peer reviewed and has been considered a primary source for foreign policy information for decades. It is focused on practice and theory and invites writers from all political stripes. Foreign Policy is more of a news magazine.
Click to expand...
The link you provided was an op ed at best I couldnt see it beyond the initial lead in its behind a pay wall

The article I listed provided point by point rationale why Trump has a better policy.

But you had a “better publication”

🤡
 
#729
#729
ajvol01 said:
Crowdstrike admitted they could not confirm the Russians hacked the DNC, but keep trying
Click to expand...
I don't know if they did one way or another, but I would assume that a good hacker could make it look like anyone did it. So if I am a russian I would try to make it look like North Korea did it. If I was China I would make it look like Iran did it, and if I was pushing a russian collusion angle I would pick the ruskies.

Also, I would name it something cool like "Project Umbrage".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and ajvol01
#730
#730
NorthDallas40 said:
No you’re not saying anything. You’re screeching “but Trump” and the data YOU provided shows how BS the damn organization is in the first place. Another exclusionary boys club.

F it let’s pull out.
Click to expand...
It is exclusive. Countries with weak economies shouldn't be in... that includes Russia. You are only passionate about this because Trump has lobbied for Russia to be included back in. Your unconditional support for Trump has made you an advocate for an American adversary. That is sad.
 
#731
#731
Sandman 423 said:
I don't know if they did one way or another, but I would assume that a good hacker could make it look like anyone did it. So if I am a russian I would try to make it look like North Korea did it. If I was China I would make it look like Iran did it, and if I was pushing a russian collusion angle I would pick the ruskies.
Click to expand...
So probably not Russia
 
#733
#733
BowlBrother85 said:
It is exclusive. Countries with weak economies shouldn't be in... that includes Russia. You are only passionate about this because Trump has lobbied for Russia to be included back in. Your unconditional support for Trump has made you an advocate for an American adversary. That is sad.
Click to expand...
No actually what I’m calling out is your usual deranged TDS behavior.

And I don’t have unconditional support for Trump ... but neither do I have continual unconditional obstruction of his admin either. Yet I’m the “advocate for an American adversary”?

🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#735
#735
ajvol01 said:
Crowdstrike admitted they could not confirm the Russians hacked the DNC, but keep trying
Click to expand...
Per CrowdStrike.com from June 5, 2020 .... Editorial Team:

CrowdStrike's work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the Record Straight

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

To reference, CrowdStrike's account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, "CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network - COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April of 2016."

This conclusion has most recently been supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issuing a report (intelligence.senate.gov) validating the previous conclusions of the intelligence community, published on January 6, 2017, that Russia was behind the data breach.

********************

This text was posted by CrowdStrike on their web site less than a month ago. So, you are either ignorant or lying. Either way, you are wrong. You are the one who needs to get your facts straight, and in your own words "keep trying". No American cares this much about trying to absolve Russia of responsibility for hacking the DNC. You are only doing this out of a misguided loyalty to your dear leader. It's pathetic. Party over country.
 
#736
#736
BowlBrother85 said:
Per CrowdStrike.com from June 5, 2020 .... Editorial Team:

CrowdStrike's work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the Record Straight

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

To reference, CrowdStrike's account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, "CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network - COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April of 2016."

This conclusion has most recently been supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issuing a report (intelligence.senate.gov) validating the previous conclusions of the intelligence community, published on January 6, 2017, that Russia was behind the data breach.

********************

This text was posted by CrowdStrike on their web site less than a month ago. So, you are either ignorant or lying. Either way, you are wrong. You are the one who needs to get your facts straight and in your own words "keep trying".
Click to expand...
Why did Shawn Henry say this in sworn testimony?

"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."
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and NorthDallas40
#737
#737
ajvol01 said:
Why did Shawn Henry say this in sworn testimony?

"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."
Click to expand...
I think the statement from CrowdStrike in my post (#735 in this thread) speaks for itself. It is only a month old and it is still on their web site. Your assertion was dead wrong.
 
#738
#738
BowlBrother85 said:
I think the statement from CrowdStrike in my post (#735 in this thread) speaks for itself. It is only a month old and it is still on their web site. Your assertion was dead wrong.
Click to expand...
I think that you choosing a BS internet statement over sworn testimony under oath speaks for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#739
#739
BowlBrother85 said:
I think the statement from CrowdStrike in my post (#735 in this thread) speaks for itself. It is only a month old and it is still on their web site. Your assertion was dead wrong.
Click to expand...
So it’s not Shawn Henry’s sworn testimony that Adam Schiff tried to prevent releasing to the American people?
 
#740
#740
NorthDallas40 said:
I think that you choosing a BS internet statement over sworn testimony under oath speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
That is hardly a BS internet statement. It is the word of the Editorial team of CrowdStrike... and it also alludes to the conclusion reached by the Senate Intel Committee in April.
 
#741
#741
NorthDallas40 said:
Dude...
Click to expand...
0619ac2197035cfc7ce123432ecdd20a.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, NorthDallas40 and 0nelilreb
#742
#742
ajvol01 said:
So it’s not Shawn Henry’s sworn testimony that Adam Schiff tried to prevent releasing to the American people?
Click to expand...
CrowdStrike's statement... which is still available on their web site for you to see, speaks for itself. Their conclusion was that Russia hacked the DNC, which is the same conclusion reached by the Senate Intel Committee and the US intelligence community. You asserted that CrowdStrike admitted that they could not confirm that Russians hacked the DNC. Their own web site completely refutes that.
 
#743
#743
BowlBrother85 said:
CrowdStrike's statement... which is still available on their web site for you to see, speaks for itself. Their conclusion was that Russia hacked the DNC, which is the same conclusion reached by the Senate Intel Committee and the US intelligence community. You asserted that CrowdStrike admitted that they could not confirm that Russians hacked the DNC. Their own web site completely refutes that.
Click to expand...
Was this statement under oath?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#746
#746
ajvol01 said:
Was this statement under oath?
Click to expand...
There were statements made under oath making CrowdStrike's assessment of Russian responsibility clear. You are trying too hard with this. Russia hacked the DNC. That has been CrowdStrike's one and only conclusion from the start.
 
#747
#747
BowlBrother85 said:
There were statements made under oath making CrowdStrike's assessment of Russian responsibility clear. You are trying too hard with this. Russia hacked the DNC. That has been CrowdStrike's one and only conclusion from the start.
Click to expand...
Yeah we know. That’s what AJ provided. You answered with an Internet webpage comment. Thanks for playing. Vanna will hand you your consolation prize as she walks you to the door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#748
#748
NorthDallas40 said:
Yeah we know. That’s what AJ provided. You answered with an Internet webpage comment. Thanks for playing. Vanna will hand you your consolation prize as she walks you to the door.
Click to expand...
You are cherry picking from Shawn Henry's testimony, to serve an agenda, just as Real Clear Investigations did. How about this testimony?

Rep. Eric Swalwell: "And I just want to be clear, based on the last line of questioning, that you're not saying that circumstantial evidence in this case was weaker than direct evidence. It's just it was only circumstantial evidence that you could rely upon. Is that right?"

Shawn Henry: "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."

Henry is telling Swalwell that he believes that Russia exfiltrated the e-mails. This is not a winning argument for you guys. Russia hacked the DNC... and that has always been CrowdStrike's conclusion - and yes, Shawn Henry did give testimony under oath to such a conclusion.
 
#749
#749
BowlBrother85 said:
You are cherry picking from Shawn Henry's testimony, to serve an agenda, just as Real Clear Investigations did. How about this testimony?

Rep. Eric Swalwell: "And I just want to be clear, based on the last line of questioning, that you're not saying that circumstantial evidence in this case was weaker than direct evidence. It's just it was only circumstantial evidence that you could rely upon. Is that right?"

Shawn Henry: "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."

Henry is telling Swalwell that he believes that Russia exfiltrated the e-mails. This is not a winning argument for you guys. Russia hacked the DNC... and that has always been CrowdStrike's conclusion - and yes, Shawn Henry did give testimony under oath to such a conclusion.
Click to expand...
Damn Russian leakers. Why are you so caught up on trying to catch the leakers and not paying any attention to the substance of the leaks?


Blue font intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#750
#750
ajvol01 said:
So it’s not Shawn Henry’s sworn testimony that Adam Schiff tried to prevent releasing to the American people?
Click to expand...
Shawn Henry did give sworn testimony that he believes that Russia hacked the DNC. See post #748 of this thread. It's just two posts above this one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top