Where did Epstein evidence go?

@Metal-Brain said
Maybe you should believe crowdstrike's congressional testimony under oath rather than the lie they have been telling before that. Lying on a website is not illegal. Lying to congress is.

He didn't lie as far as I know. You're just too stupid to understand what he said; no they didn't see the data being actually hacked - Crowdstrike was called in after the hack. But they had ample evidence ("circumstantial" evidence is evidence and is, in fact, the type of evidence that decides most criminal cases as I explained to you long ago) that the Russians hacked it, And the idea that the Russians would hack it but not extricate it is absurd on its face even if we didn't know the exact dates and times and the name of the file sent to Wikileaks and subsequently published there (as spelled out in the Mueller Report).

@Metal-Brain said
"sharing information with a foreign government to help their efforts to interfere in the US election is illegal. And that's "collusion"

But you have not proven Russia interfered with the US election. You just say it. Prove it.

It's already proven including by the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

That you stupidly and stubbornly refuse to accept it is your problem.

@Metal-Brain said
It was a Russian, not a foreign government.
Why did Hillary hire a foreign government through Fusion GPS to write the debunked Steele Dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page?

A Russian who was an intelligence agent for the Russian government.

Your second paragraph is wrong on every count.

@no1marauder said
He didn't lie as far as I know. You're just too stupid to understand what he said; no they didn't see the data being actually hacked - Crowdstrike was called in after the hack. But they had ample evidence ("circumstantial" evidence is evidence and is, in fact, the type of evidence that decides most criminal cases as I explained to you long ago) that the Russians hacked it ...[text shortened]... the file sent to Wikileaks and subsequently published there (as spelled out in the Mueller Report).

""circumstantial" evidence is evidence "

No it is not. It is a misnomer.
He said "no evidence".

You cannot turn no evidence into evidence by using the word "circumstantial". You know better.

@no1marauder said
No, that's not what I said; I said I didn't know whether he was in Ukraine at the time.

Steele was working for GPS Fusion a US company at the time, not a foreign government.

Then I will ask. Was he an intelligence agent for Russia at the time?
And what election interference? You are still evading that question. What info did he share if any? Your article said he "sought" to share info, not that he did.

@no1marauder said
I answered it, you moron. It's illegal to provide information to a foreign government to help it interfere with a US election which is what Manafort did. Why else provide internal campaign data?

You have not proven that. You have not even proved he shared the data. Just that he "sought" to. What kind of data? Poll data? LOL!

You are making yourself look silly. You cannot prove any election interference. Give up. You are debating in circles because you have no proof.

@no1marauder said
It's already proven including by the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

That you stupidly and stubbornly refuse to accept it is your problem.

The same people who heard Henry say "no evidence".
Once again, did that they hear Henry's testimony before or after they wrote that report? Stop evading the question.

@no1marauder said
A Russian who was an intelligence agent for the Russian government.

Your second paragraph is wrong on every count.

I asked you if he was at that time. Was he or wasn't he?
If he was, did Manafort know that? Intent or lack of intent matters. You know that.

@Metal-Brain said
""circumstantial" evidence is evidence "

No it is not. It is a misnomer.
He said "no evidence".

You cannot turn no evidence into evidence by using the word "circumstantial". You know better.

"MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the
Russian Government.
And our analysts that looked at it that had looked at these
types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different
environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were
moving in the environment, and looking at the types of data that was being
targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with
Russian intelligence." p. 24

"
MR. HENRY:

"Everything in my experience, sir, having done this for many,
many years, both in the government and in the private sector, says that it was the
Russian Government." p. 29

"MR. HENRY: 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." p. 32

https://ia803409.us.archive.org/11/items/2019-01-03-alexander-n-mtr/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted_text.pdf

Of course, it's all moot; we know the data was exfiltrated,

@Metal-Brain said
The same people who heard Henry say "no evidence".
Once again, did that they hear Henry's testimony before or after they wrote that report? Stop evading the question.

I'll bet a $100 you never read Henry's testimony.

I gave the link and he explicitly says the Russians did the hack. And we know the files were exfiltrated; they were all over Wikileaks.

@Metal-Brain said
"Russia interfered in our election"

How?

It's been gone over and over. The only reason that it's back in the news cycle is because trump wants to deflect away from Epstein.

@Metal-Brain said
Then I will ask. Was he an intelligence agent for Russia at the time?
And what election interference? You are still evading that question. What info did he share if any? Your article said he "sought" to share info, not that he did.

That's what the Senate Intelligence Committee report said.

And he admitted to sharing internal campaign documents with Kilmilik; how many times do I have to show that?

@no1marauder said
"MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the
Russian Government.
And our analysts that looked at it that had looked at these
types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different
environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were
moving in the environment, and looking at the ty ...[text shortened]... -04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted_text.pdf

Of course, it's all moot; we know the data was exfiltrated,

LOL!!!!!!!!!

"We did not have concrete evidence that
data was exfiltrated from the DNC"

I have high confidence you are an idiot. Do I have evidence?
Dude, you can read the quote above you posted. Indicators is not evidence. You know that. Are you trying to fool yourself? Because you are not fooling anyone else.

@no1marauder said
That's what the Senate Intelligence Committee report said.

And he admitted to sharing internal campaign documents with Kilmilik; how many times do I have to show that?

Poll Data?
LOL!

How is that election interference?

@wildgrass said
It's been gone over and over. The only reason that it's back in the news cycle is because trump wants to deflect away from Epstein.

"trump wants to deflect away from Epstein"

I agree, but that does not change the fact nobody can prove Russian Collusion to interfere in the US election. You and no1 have no evidence.