Former US Intel Officials Silent on Twitter eMails - inre, Hunter Laptop

@metal-brain said
So it is only if a foreign power does it that makes it nefarious? Does that mean if BBC News America was to place ads on facebook that would be considered election meddling? Public television has BBC News America on their broadcast. Does that mean PBS is election meddling by promoting propaganda from a foreign power?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n13xtmgh

bbc.CO.UK can publish whatever is legal to be published in the U.K.

In America, it is a crime to attempt to overthrow the U.S. govt by force or by chicanery. In Russia it is not a crime to attempt to overthrow the U.S. govt by force or any other means; on the contrary, it is encouraged. What part of foreign vs. domestic do you fail to comprehend?

Gad, you're as thick as two short planks. Why does someone have to explain this to you ??

@moonbus said
There are laws regulating what foreign governments or agents may and may not do viz a viz U.S. domestic affairs. No foreign power or agent may contribute campaign money to a U.S. party or candidate, for example.

An action which constitutes meddling by a foreign power or agent may very well be allowed domestically; it's called "campaign contributions" or "influencing" or ...[text shortened]... ou one of the children left behind in Bush's vision of a great society, or were you home schooled ??

I understand that and I also understand Russia didn't do any of that.

"Despite what you have denied many times, Russian agents did meddle in the 2016 election. Two independent investigative commissions, one from the DoJ and one from the U.S. Senate Intel Committee, found enough evidence to issue indictments."

There is no evidence Russian agents meddled in the 2016 election. As I have proven over and over again, there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC. The UK is meddling in US elections more than RT ever was. They even have a program airing on PBS. You were just influenced by propaganda to support double standards.

https://www.pbs.org/sponsorship/shows/bbc-world-news/

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

"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."

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

"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."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." 

You need to accept facts. You were lied to. Russia did not hack the DNC. Seth Rich was wikileaks source. That is why he was shot in the back twice. He exposed the DNC election meddling which forced Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign in disgrace for conspiracy to election meddle. It is such an embarrassment they concocted the Russia hacking the DNC lie too distract people from the real should be scandal, election meddling from within the DNC itself.

The DNC also hired a foreigner, ex-British spy Christopher Steele to fabricate evidence against Trump. If it is really about foreigners election meddling why are you not furious at ex-British spy Christopher Steele? Because it isn't about foreigners at all. It is only Russia because you have an anti Russia bias from all the propaganda you were influenced by.

Then there is the CIA installing Yeltsin in power in Russia. The CIA actually affected the outcome when they election meddled, but it is not unacceptable when the west does it, right? Tell me, is that acceptable hypocrisy? How do you rationalize these double standards?

@moonbus said
bbc.CO.UK can publish whatever is legal to be published in the U.K.

In America, it is a crime to attempt to overthrow the U.S. govt by force or by chicanery. In Russia it is not a crime to attempt to overthrow the U.S. govt by force or any other means; on the contrary, it is encouraged. What part of foreign vs. domestic do you fail to comprehend?

Gad, you're as thick as two short planks. Why does someone have to explain this to you ??

RT can publish whatever is legal to be published in Russia.
Russia did not attempt to overthrow the US government. RT is just giving people news. Do you support censoring RT the way the USA tried to do to PressTV Iran?

https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/presstv-iranian-websites-justice-department-seizure.html

@metal-brain said
RT can publish whatever is legal to be published in Russia.
Russia did not attempt to overthrow the US government. RT is just giving people news. Do you support censoring RT the way the USA tried to do to PressTV Iran?

https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/presstv-iranian-websites-justice-department-seizure.html

Hahaha yeah sure thing Ivan that’ll be why RT and the rest of the Kremlin held a mission accomplished champagne celebration when trump got elected in 2016.

@earl-of-trumps said
Tell me the difference:

1. WikiLeaks releases information detrimental to Hilaty Clinton's election in 2016

2. Several former CIA heads and other officials swear that the Hunter Biden laptop information was Russian disinformation.

give up? Hidden content removed

Without looking at the hidden content I’d say the first example is election meddling whilst the other is an opinion that may have a lot of truth in it.
Are you still pretending that the Kremlin and its security agencies have not been actively trying to get trump back into the White House?

@metal-brain said
I understand that and I also understand Russia didn't do any of that.

"Despite what you have denied many times, Russian agents did meddle in the 2016 election. Two independent investigative commissions, one from the DoJ and one from the U.S. Senate Intel Committee, found enough evidence to issue indictments."

There is no evidence Russian agents meddled in the 2016 ...[text shortened]... oes it, right? Tell me, is that acceptable hypocrisy? How do you rationalize these double standards?

Go to the source, instead of quoting a politically biased web site which only quotes other sources to put a spin on them.

Here is the source:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-116srpt290.pdf

The committee was chaired by a Rep. Senator, so you can't claim political bias against Trump here. The committee uncovered evidence of wide-ranging meddling, not restricted to hacking the DNC server. I know you won't bother to read the Senate report; I'm linking to it so others who might be interested can read it for themselves.

@earl-of-trumps said
I'm not attacking Twitter, I'm going after our INTEL people, who are under the DoJ

Exactly.
They lied in order to cover up Joe and Hunter's money-grubbing treason and help the Democrat party.

@moonbus said
Go to the source, instead of quoting a politically biased web site which only quotes other sources to put a spin on them.

Here is the source:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-116srpt290.pdf

The committee was chaired by a Rep. Senator, so you can't claim political bias against Trump here. The committee uncovered evidence of w ...[text shortened]... d the Senate report; I'm linking to it so others who might be interested can read it for themselves.

You are digressing into irrelevancies. Crowdstrike made the statements I posted under oath and under threat of perjury if they didn't tell the truth. Nobody is disputing Crowdstrike changed their story from evidence to no evidence. They lied, then under threat of perjury Henry told the truth so he did not perjure himself.

I gave you the facts and you don't want to believe them because it destroys the false narrative you were fed. What part of "no evidence" do you not understand?

@kevcvs57 said
Hahaha yeah sure thing Ivan that’ll be why RT and the rest of the Kremlin held a mission accomplished champagne celebration when trump got elected in 2016.

They were not celebrating Trump's win, they were celebrating HRC's loss. They hated her for reasons that probably elude you.

@kevcvs57 said
Without looking at the hidden content I’d say the first example is election meddling whilst the other is an opinion that may have a lot of truth in it.
Are you still pretending that the Kremlin and its security agencies have not been actively trying to get trump back into the White House?

He doesn't have to pretend. There is no evidence of that. Provide your source of info or stop spreading misinformation.

@metal-brain said
You are digressing into irrelevancies. Crowdstrike made the statements I posted under oath and under threat of perjury if they didn't tell the truth. Nobody is disputing Crowdstrike changed their story from evidence to no evidence. They lied, then under threat of perjury Henry told the truth so he did not perjure himself.

I gave you the facts and you don't want to beli ...[text shortened]... ause it destroys the false narrative you were fed. What part of "no evidence" do you not understand?

So, you think the U.S. Intel Committee report is irrelevant. You think Crowdstrike is on the money. How about this then:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election

Indictments. Of Russian agents. Twelve of them. Based on evidence.

Quote:
<All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian military. These GRU officers, in their official capacities, engaged in a sustained effort to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and released that information on the internet under the names "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" and through another entity.

...

The officials in Unit 26165 coordinated with officials in Unit 74455 to plan the release of the stolen documents for the purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election. Defendants registered the domain DCLeaks.com and later staged the release of thousands of stolen emails and documents through that website. On the website, defendants claimed to be “American hacktivists” and used Facebook accounts with fictitious names and Twitter accounts to promote the website. After public accusations that the Russian government was behind the hacking of DNC and DCCC computers, defendants created the fictitious persona Guccifer 2.0. On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement.

Members of Unit 74455 also conspired to hack into the computers of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and US companies that supplied software and other technology related to the administration of elections to steal voter data stored on those computers.
>

You ready to admit you're wrong now?

@moonbus said
So, you think the U.S. Intel Committee report is irrelevant. You think Crowdstrike is on the money. How about this then:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election

Indictments. Of Russian agents. Twelve of them. Based on evidence.

Quote:
<All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a R ...[text shortened]... elections to steal voter data stored on those computers.
>

You ready to admit you're wrong now?

Indicting Russians without evidence does not prove anything. There was no fair trial to prove guilt or innocence. Mueller is a witch hunt kind of guy. Take a look at his previous work on the anthrax case.

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/DOJ/story?id=5264759&page=1

@metal-brain said
I understand that and I also understand Russia didn't do any of that.

"Despite what you have denied many times, Russian agents did meddle in the 2016 election. Two independent investigative commissions, one from the DoJ and one from the U.S. Senate Intel Committee, found enough evidence to issue indictments."

There is no evidence Russian agents meddled in the 2016 ...[text shortened]... oes it, right? Tell me, is that acceptable hypocrisy? How do you rationalize these double standards?

You've used that debunked article at least a 100 times. You know it is BS.

Here's what Crowdstrike really said in context: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

"HENRY (under oath in front of the House Intelligence Committee): We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it and 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. "

"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.”"

@metal-brain said
Indicting Russians without evidence does not prove anything. There was no fair trial to prove guilt or innocence. Mueller is a witch hunt kind of guy. Take a look at his previous work on the anthrax case.

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/DOJ/story?id=5264759&page=1

Those Russians can have fair trials whenever they want by surrendering to US authorities.

@no1marauder said
You've used that debunked article at least a 100 times. You know it is BS.

Here's what Crowdstrike really said in context: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

"HENRY (under oath in front of the House Intelligence Committee): We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our anal ...[text shortened]... rmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”"

That article was never ever debunked before even once so stop your pathetic lying!
Crowdstrike lied and their website cannot be trusted for the truth. Henry's testimony under oath and under threat of perjury is the only relevant info here. You are trying to prove by claiming the liars stopped lying.

Crowdstrike lied when they claimed they had proof. Then they had to admit the truth to avoid perjury. That is the only testimony that is relevant and you know it.