Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
This should be an easy example.
Imagine if you took my word for something; where you're the FBI and I'm the outsourced Crowdstrike. Would anyone else in NBR take your word for what I said when it came to light that you used my info? Most likely not me thinks.
Conversely, I'm pretty sure the FBI said there was no evidence of a hack which means they didnt do their job. How did the FBI prove no hack without having the box? How can you be so sure of the download speed? Would you trust my info?
I don't think Crowdstrike ever had the actual server either. They run a script that pulls all the data off the computer and then they analyze the results. That file was given to the FBI. With that information, they would then trace where it came from and where the data went, which is presumably how the FBI found the American servers the Russians were using. They have not released these details, so I don't have all the answers, but there is no reason to not believe Mueller other than you don't want to. For me it is just about trust, it is about plausibility. How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy? 50 people maybe? From people within the DNC to Crowdstrike staff, to FBI agents and lawyers all the way to up Mueller? Why involve Crowdstrike at all if the FBI was in on it? Who would have the motive and resources to orchestrate the whole thing? The conspiracy is pretty complicated for a plan to leak some emails.
Why run a script that cant show active ports - just pull a server log instead? Unless you can log active ports and ip's after the fact... I'm rusty on my IT and maybe thats a new forensic thing.
So you agree, the conspiracy angle makes more sense when you consider one person leaked the emails. Regarding the actual hack, not that many would have to present. One IT guy from the DNC, Crowdstrike and then the FBI team.
One question about the Russian servers - did they ever tie those machines into tampering with votes?