@metal-brain saidRestructured Syntax to make Things more clear:
Conspiracy of silence from the corporate news media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1NEexEintU
Silence of the corporate media on consipracy (Theory*).
* I added a word for better understandability
@metal-brain said🙄
Conspiracy of silence from the corporate news media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1NEexEintU
CrowdStrike, a very "connected" company for crooked Pelosi to put her money!
Last I checked, CrowdStrike had turned in a redacted report of the DNC servers to
the DoJ, who in turn asked CrowdStrike for an unredacted report, which CrowdStrike
has refused to do.
CrowdStrike has since admitted they had no evidence that Russia was responsible
for the hack of the DNC server. Nice! how timely.
A forensics group has demonstrated that the downloading of the DNC email files
was done in such a short amount of time, it could not have been done over the
internet, but was within the time limit of being downloaded directly to a USB drive.
New meta-analysis has emerged from a document published today by an independent researcher known as The Forensicator, which suggests that files eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona were likely initially downloaded by a person with physical access to a computer possibly connected to the internal DNC network. The individual most likely used a USB drive to copy the information. The groundbreaking new analysis irrevocably destroys the Russian hacking narrative, and calls the actions of Crowdstrike and the DNC into question.
https://theduran.com/new-evidence-shows-dnc-server-files-were-downloaded-directly-to-usb-drive-not-hacked-by-russians/
----------------------
Rest easy, Democrats, Deep State has you covered.
@metal-brain saidYes indeed
Conspiracy of silence from the corporate news media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1NEexEintU
@earl-of-trumps said“Forensicator” is not a word Fabricator is though.
CrowdStrike, a very "connected" company for crooked Pelosi to put her money!
Last I checked, CrowdStrike had turned in a redacted report of the DNC servers to
the DoJ, who in turn asked CrowdStrike for an unredacted report, which CrowdStrike
has refused to do.
CrowdStrike has since admitted they had no evidence that Russia was responsible
for the hack of the ...[text shortened]... not-hacked-by-russians/
----------------------
Rest easy, Democrats, Deep State has you covered.
@earl-of-trumps saidThis ancient (July 2017) fairy tale has been debunked numerous times on this Forum and the release of the indictments against the Russians and the Mueller Report which gave detailed instances of Russian hacking including times and dates should have put this to bed for any reasonable person.
CrowdStrike, a very "connected" company for crooked Pelosi to put her money!
Last I checked, CrowdStrike had turned in a redacted report of the DNC servers to
the DoJ, who in turn asked CrowdStrike for an unredacted report, which CrowdStrike
has refused to do.
CrowdStrike has since admitted they had no evidence that Russia was responsible
for the hack of the ...[text shortened]... not-hacked-by-russians/
----------------------
Rest easy, Democrats, Deep State has you covered.
@no1marauder saidyou are conflating two entirely different things. crowdstrike had nothing to do with a handful of internet posters. the fbi/doj has yet to see the servers or underlying results of the supposed dnc hack. all the have been able to obtain is crowdstrikes word.
This ancient (July 2017) fairy tale has been debunked numerous times on this Forum and the release of the indictments against the Russians and the Mueller Report which gave detailed instances of Russian hacking including times and dates should have put this to bed for any reasonable person.
Its not over yet.
@mott-the-hoople saidWe've been all over the ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding the DNC servers (of which there were about 150).
you are conflating two entirely different things. crowdstrike had nothing to do with a handful of internet posters. the fbi/doj has yet to see the servers or underlying results of the supposed dnc hack. all the have been able to obtain is crowdstrikes word.
Its not over yet.
EDIT: That's 150 servers, not ridiculous conspiracy theories about them (there's been far more than that).
@no1marauder said"EDIT: That's 150 servers, not ridiculous conspiracy theories about them (there's been far more than that)."
We've been all over the ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding the DNC servers (of which there were about 150).
EDIT: That's 150 servers, not ridiculous conspiracy theories about them (there's been far more than that).
LOL what possible difference does that make?
@mott-the-hoople saidThe number of servers made a difference as regards the hysterical claims that the FBI should have seized all the DNC servers. We've been over this numerous times here, but the FBI doesn't normally seize servers from the victim of a hack and doing so here would have essentially put the DNC out of business in the middle of an election.
"EDIT: That's 150 servers, not ridiculous conspiracy theories about them (there's been far more than that)."
LOL what possible difference does that make?
@no1marauder saidYou are delusional.
This ancient (July 2017) fairy tale has been debunked numerous times on this Forum and the release of the indictments against the Russians and the Mueller Report which gave detailed instances of Russian hacking including times and dates should have put this to bed for any reasonable person.
The Mueller report relied on Crowdstrike for those times and dates. Since then Crowdstrike admitted it had no evidence. What part of "no evidence" do you not understand?
I told you long ago that the CIA's UMBRAGE makes it clear proving who is hacking who is too difficult to pinpoint. You just don't want to see facts. Only an incompetent hacker would get caught. Russian hackers are far from the Gilligans and Barney Fifes of Russia.
@metal-brain saidLike most of your failed arguments, your given is flawed.
You are delusional.
The Mueller report relied on Crowdstrike for those times and dates. Since then Crowdstrike admitted it had no evidence. What part of "no evidence" do you not understand?
I told you long ago that the CIA's UMBRAGE makes it clear proving who is hacking who is too difficult to pinpoint. You just don't want to see facts. Only an incompetent hacker would get caught. Russian hackers are far from the Gilligans and Barney Fifes of Russia.