Twitter's bias against John James

@no1marauder said
"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."

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

June 5, 2020 from Crowdstrike's site

They lied. They admitted they had no proof. Either you accept what he said under oath or you don't. The question is not whether or not Crowdstrike lied, it is only which time was the lie.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_president_under_oath_no_proof_of_russia_dnc_hack_510974.html#!

Which was the lie? Both statements cannot be true. Only one.

@metal-brain said
They lied. They admitted they had no proof. Either you accept what he said under oath or you don't. The question is not whether or not Crowdstrike lied, it is only which time was the lie.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_president_under_oath_no_proof_of_russia_dnc_hack_510974.html#!

Which was the lie? Both statements cannot be true. Only one.

They admitted no such thing as you'd know if you read the link I provided rather than the right wing conspiracy sites you immerse yourself in.

They answered the questions honestly; they didn't actually see the data being electronically removed but the evidence is overwhelming it was. A proper analogy would be if an accident reconstruction team was asked if they actually saw the two car fender bender on Maple and Oak; they'd have to say they had no "direct" evidence (like Crowdstrike did) but then they would describe exactly what circumstantial evidence they had that led them to the conclusion that Car B rear ended Car A. As Crowdstrike's page makes clear, that is what they did, so no "lies".

"Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, the Intelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”

Did CrowdStrike see in real-time the adversaries exfiltrate data and emails from the DNC network?

No and that’s typical for incident response cases. In the vast majority of cyber investigations, incident responders don’t witness exfiltration in real-time. In fact, often we are called in after theft has taken place. We collect forensics, evidence of prior activity on the network, map where the adversary has gained access and prepare remediation plans.

In this particular case, CrowdStrike saw circumstantial evidence of data exfiltration from the DNC network. As a reference point circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence such as DNA analysis or fingerprints that are fully admissible in courts.

Shawn Henry stated in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32 of the testimony):

“Counsel just 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.’[//b]

and circumstantial evidence that data was taken as he states on page 75 ”so there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken” and page 76:

“MR. HENRY: So, to go back, because I think it’s important to characterize this. We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’ [b]We said that the data Ieft based on the circumstantial evidence. That was a conclusion that we made. when I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate’ I want to provide the facts. so I said that we didn’t have direct evidence’ But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”

On page 32 of the testimony, Henry also explains that

“We don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened” and “we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.” As another reference point, the independent report by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller also cites the theft of documents from the DNC and DCCC on page 40, stating the following:

“Officers from Unit 26165 stole thousands of documents from the DCCC and DNC networks, including significant amounts of data pertaining to the 2016 U.S. federal elections. Stolen documents included internal strategy documents, fundraising data, opposition research, and emails from the work inboxes of DNC employees.”

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

@no1marauder said
They admitted no such thing as you'd know if you read the link I provided rather than the right wing conspiracy sites you immerse yourself in.

They answered the questions honestly; they didn't actually see the data being electronically removed but the evidence is overwhelming it was. A proper analogy would be if an accident reconstruction team was asked if they actuall ...[text shortened]... that Car B rear ended Car A. As Crowdstrike's page makes clear, that is what they did, so no "lies".

"They admitted no such thing"

You are a LIAR! They admitted it under oath and you know it!

@no1marauder said
"Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, the Intelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU ...[text shortened]... employees.”

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

"We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated"

No concrete evidence. It seems that you are denial of your own source of information. They said yes, then followed it up by not really.

Your own link contradicted itself.

@metal-brain said
"We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated"

No concrete evidence. It seems that you are denial of your own source of information. They said yes, then followed it up by not really.

Your own link contradicted itself.

No it didn't.

You're too aggressively ignorant to understand that in most cases circumstantial evidence is all we get.

@no1marauder said
No it didn't.

You're too aggressively ignorant to understand that in most cases circumstantial evidence is all we get.

"circumstantial evidence is all we get"

In other words, no evidence.

@metal-brain said
"circumstantial evidence is all we get"

In other words, no evidence.

Plenty of people have went to prison on circumstantial evidence.

As usual, your ignorance shows.

Here's an explanation from the New York Law Journal:

"Practitioners sometimes reflexively think of circumstantial evidence as a lesser form of proof than direct evidence. But it is not treated that way by law or even necessarily by juries. As the Court of Appeals has recognized, “[c]ircumstantial proof is … as probative as direct evidence and may even be more persuasive.” New York State Ass’n of Ctys v. Axelrod, 78 N.Y.2d 158, 171 (1991). In this column, we will discuss some of the case law governing the use of circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is defined in the Pattern Jury Instructions as “evidence of a fact which does not directly prove a fact in dispute but which permits a reasonable inference or conclusion that the fact exists.” See New York Pattern Jury Instructions 1:70 (2017) (Circumstantial Evidence). To illustrate the concept, the Pattern Jury Instructions offer an example of a witness who sees a glass full of water, looks away, hears the sound of glass breaking, and then turns and sees a person sitting by the shattered glass, wearing wet clothes. The witness cannot offer direct evidence of how the glass broke, because she did not see it happen. But she can provide compelling circumstantial evidence that the person with wet clothes was responsible for breaking it."

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/sites/newyorklawjournal/2017/11/27/circumstantial-evidence-an-important-source-of-proof/

@no1marauder said
Plenty of people have went to prison on circumstantial evidence.

As usual, your ignorance shows.

Here's an explanation from the New York Law Journal:

"Practitioners sometimes reflexively think of circumstantial evidence as a lesser form of proof than direct evidence. But it is not treated that way by law or even necessarily by juries. As the Court of Appeals has ...[text shortened]... klawjournal/sites/newyorklawjournal/2017/11/27/circumstantial-evidence-an-important-source-of-proof/

Crowdstrike said they had no evidence under oath. Unless you can prove that is fake news you are wrong and in stubborn denial of it.

Either they had evidence or they did not. There is no in between here. I proved you wrong.

@no1marauder said
"Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, the Intelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU ...[text shortened]... employees.”

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Indicators is not evidence. He even said he didn't have direct evidence.

YouTube

“While not everyone wins in an election, voters must be confident that the election was fair and honest,” James wrote. “Failure to do so, is the end of democracy.”

"When this process is complete, I will of course accept the results and the will of the people," James added, "but at this time there is enough credible evidence to warrant an investigation to ensure that elections were conducted in a transparent, legal and fair manner. Those who object likely have something to hide."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/524716-james-refuses-to-concede-to-peters-in-michigan-senate-race

So does twitter have a problem with JJ because he is black, republican or because he was running against Gary Peters?

Could the Wayne County allegations be related to preventing JJ from winning?

https://themichiganstar.com/2020/11/10/new-lawsuit-in-michigan-alleges-massive-fraud-in-election-vote-counting-calls-for-new-election-in-wayne-county/