Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post Is on Pace to Lose $100 Million in Just a Year

submitted by Johni1 from titanblogging.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Of course they were. They had images of them.

Do you not read the links I give? Mueller's team was not allowed access to the servers. Months later, Mueller was sent a curated partial set of some hard drives, prepared by CrowdStrike, which Crowdstrike claims to be images of some of the server hard drives.

If this were a genuine criminal investigation, and not a political hit job, there is no way in the world that any competent investigator would allow something like that. It violates all the rules for evidence gathering during forensic data collection, and there's no chain of custody for the data.

In a nutshell, allowing the complainant such an opportunity to tamper with the data and pick and choose what evidence Mueller sees put the whole thing in doubt. The evidence from the Crowdstrike hard drives must be considered irreparably tainted and that alone provides more than enough reasonable doubt that in a fair trial every single one of the supposed Russian hackers would walk free.

Assuming they would get a fair trial, which is highly unlikely in the current American political climate.

He proved charges against half a dozen people close to trump.

He proved charges of obstruction, perjury and financial crimes, not conspiracy with Russians.

How do you know that the evidence they have against the Russian hackers is any better than the evidence that Saddam Hussein was still building WMD?

Because people spent time in prison and the standard is behind reasonable doubt.

You think spending time in prison proves guilt???

None of the supposed hackers have been put on trial so none of the evidence has been seen, let alone tested in court.

Even if we accept the guilt of those charged with unrelated crimes (obstruction, fraud, identity theft) that doesn't prove the guilt of the supposed hackers. How could it? They are unrelated crimes.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Do you not read the links I give? Mueller's team was not allowed access to the servers.

That's not correct. They had images of the servers, so there was no need for them to try to get physical access to the servers. It's not that they weren't allowed. It's merely one of the many things they didn't request.

The images were better than physical access, because they were taken during the time the penetrations were perpetrated, so has better information than the physical servers. The images were more convenient than physical access to the servers, as it avoided the logistical problems of plugging in keyboards and monitors to hundreds of physical computers.

there's no chain of custody for the data.

Okay, I'm going in: What the fuck do you claim broke the chain of custody for the images?

He proved charges of obstruction, perjury and financial crimes, not conspiracy with Russians.

Only with respect to the criminal mind. He showed that the conspiracy existed, but felt that he couldn't show in court that those 18 people who were meeting with the Russians weren't too dumb to know it was a crime, beyond all reasonable doubt.

You think spending time in prison proves guilt???

Not always. But the people who plead or were found guilty by Mueller were not examples of miscarriage of justice.

None of the supposed hackers have been put on trial so none of the evidence has been seen, let alone tested in court.

Not true. There was an american convicted of identity theft, as part of the phishing operations of the hackers.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

It's not that they weren't allowed.

It is that they weren't permitted. Mueller requested access to the servers so a trained FBI team could make verified, tamper-proof images of the drives, and was refused access. Its not clear to me whether it was the DNC or Crowdstrike that refused them access, although in practical terms it makes no difference. Crowdstrike works for the DNC and dances to their tune. Later on, Crowdstrike provided what they say are images of some of the drives, not all, although again it isn't clear whether they imaged the entire drive or just selected parts of the data.

Come on now, this isn't in dispute. This has been widely reported and acknowledged by everyone that neither the FBI nor Mueller had access to the crime scene (the DNC servers) or made their own certified forensic images of the drives. They were completely at the mercy of Crowdstrike as to what they were allowed to see.

Crowdstrike, who are paid by the DNC. At least the FBI is supposed to be independent and neutral but Crowdstrike is completely, 100% partisan here: their client is the supposedly injured party. Can you see just a teeny, tiny conflict of interest there?

The images were better than physical access, because ...

If you don't know how law enforcement investigate data crimes, just say so. Because your description of why images are better is Not Even Wrong.

It's not the images that is the problem. It's that we have no way of knowing that the images are legitimate, and haven't been tampered with. Its that Mueller was only given a subset of the server hard drive images, and we don't know what is on the other drives.

The DNC claimed in their lawsuit that the hack affected over 330 servers. I smell a tiny bit of exaggeration there; over 140 of those servers were decommissioned after the alleged hack, which suggests that they were probably old and not in use and the DNC took the opportunity to get rid of them at Russia's expense. (Assuming they can collect damages.)

We can get a better idea of what really went on when we remember that Crowdstrike provided Mueller with four, count 'em, four server hard drive images. So out of 330+ servers that the DNC claim were hacked and needed to be repaired, replaced or decommissioned, only four actually contained any (alleged) signs of hacking.

Hmmm.

I say signs of hacking advisably, rather than evidence, because Crowdstrike reported in 2017 that they had no evidence that any data was actually removed from the servers.

You can see how these sorts of politically motivated hit pieces work. Crowdstrike reports to the intelligence committee that they claim Russia hacked the servers; the intelligence committed doesn't have access to the servers themselves, only to the data that Crowdstrike gives them, so of course they concur with Crowdstrike's report. They see only what Crowdstrike wants them to see.

You can also see the corporate dishonesty here. Under oath, Crowdstrike's CEO literally used the words "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC" but in Crowdstrike's corporate blog they describe this "no concrete evidence" as "Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network? Yes."

By "Yes" they mean "No". If they actually had evidence, the CEO would have said "We did have concrete evidence..." when speaking under oath. What they have is quote-unquote "indications" which could mean anything at all.

Any time a corporation says they're going to "set the record straight", you can be certain that you are about to read spin, PR and a self-congratulatory puff-piece.

What the fuck do you claim broke the chain of custody for the images?

You're not serious are you? Playing a joke on your good friend Weavils right?

The FBI and Mueller never, at no point in the investigation, had access to the crime scene (the DNC servers) or a verifiable tamper-proof image of their drives. The alleged images of the drives could have been accessed by anyone at all before being given to Mueller. There's your break in the chain of custody right there.

It's as if Hillary called up the FBI and said that some Russian dude just broke in to her office and stabbed her intern Monica to death and left a knife behind with his name written in Cyrillic on it. "No you can't come and investigate the crime scene. You can't see the knife. But don't worry, I've hired a private investigate who has taken some photos of the knife and they'll send you the photos. Eventually, when we get around to it."

The Mueller investigation really is that stupid.

Aside from all the other problems with the Mueller investigation that I've already mentioned:

  • failure to investigate the criminal conspiracy between Clinton's lawyer Sussmann and the dodgy British intelligent agent Steele
  • failure to investigate Joseph Mifsud, who Mueller himself accused of lying to him
  • the bogus charges against Concord that Mueller dropped rather than face the humiliation of having to go to court with no evidence
  • Crowdstrike's admission that they have no evidence that data was copied from the DNC servers
  • failure to follow basic law enforcement procedures when investigating data theft

there are other serious problems with the Russia Did It narrative:

It's a good thing for Mueller's credibility that he will never, ever have to prove his claims against the GRU officers in court, because any defence attorney would absolutely destroy him over these holes in the narrative. (That is assuming that the people named actually are GRU officers and not just random Russian names plucked out of the Moscow phone book.)

The best we can say about the Mueller report is not that it proves the Russian hack beyond reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probabilities, but that it makes a nice story that seems plausible to people who know nothing about IT or forensics.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

It is that they weren't permitted. Mueller requested access to the servers so a trained FBI team could make verified, tamper-proof images of the drives, and was refused access.

Wrong.

the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers

not clear to me whether it was the DNC or Crowdstrike that refused them access

It's good that your suspicions were aroused.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Wait, you're saying that when investigating a crime, the people investigating the crime... didn't actually investigate the scene of the crime?

And this is supposed to be a defence of the Mueller report? 😂

DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed that the FBI never requested access to the servers. If that were true, that would be remarkably unprofessional of the FBI. But some days later, FBI Director James Comey testified to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels" but those requests were denied.

So either Walker or Comey is lying or mistaken.

In either case, Comey never explained why the FBI allowed the alleged victim of a crime to dictate to law enforcement how the crime scene is inspected. The FBI is supposed to ensure a proper chain of evidentiary custody, instead they allowed the alleged victim of the crime to pick and choose what supposed evidence they saw. They even allowed Crowdstrike and the DNC to redact the information they gave to the FBI.

In other words, the FBI didn't investigate the alleged server breach. The DNC and Crowdstrike investigated it themselves, then passed on to the FBI only the information they wanted the FBI to see, who then accepted it and made no attempt to independently verify it.

This was not a criminal investigation. This was a transparent attempt to incriminate Russia for the DNC leak, regardless of who actually leaked the data or how they did it.

The Mueller investigation really is a joke. He made no effort to even interview Julian Assange. His report has a timeline that requires Assange to have announced the DNC emails before he received them. The leaks from Guccifer 2.0 were very low quality and Wikileaks refused to handle them (they were either duplicates of things they already had, or were unverifiable). Guccifer 2.0 communicated through Twitter, and demanded public recognition for hacking the DNC, which hardly sounds like the actions of professional intelligence agents.

There are more holes in the Mueller report than in Swiss cheese.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Wait, you're saying that when investigating a crime, the people investigating the crime... didn't actually investigate the scene of the crime?

The scene of the crime was the internet. Physically the hackers were from the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Headquartered in Moscow, but there are a number of sites that they would have worked from.

And this is supposed to be a defence of the Mueller report?

It's supposed to be refutation of your claims that Mueller's team were denied access to the servers.

The images of the serves were better for investigating, because they had them from nearer to and during some of the penetrations. Physical access to hundreds of severs in a rack is a pointless waste of time and resources.

There are more holes in the Mueller report than in Swiss cheese.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

I see you've got a noted partisan and pro-trump source for that.

The reason a pro-Trumper might like to give the impression that the Mueller report is full of holes, is because it provided enough sound evidence to lock up his close associates, and pointedly concluded that it did not exonerate Trump.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The scene of the crime was the internet.

The scene of the crime was the server or servers allegedly hacked, not "the internet". The internet is a world-wide network of computers. You're on the internet right now. Do you imagine that you are present at the scene of a crime because somewhere in the world, some other computer is being hacked?

It's supposed to be refutation of your claims that Mueller's team were denied access to the servers.

Okay, so it is your position that:

  1. The reason Mueller's team were not denied access is that they never requested access.
  2. Your evidence for this is that the DNC deputy communications director, a partisan source and representative of an organisation without even the pretense of neutrality, and one whose credibility is in serious doubt after spending four years trying to undermine the American electoral system with their unfounded conspiracy theories that Russia stole the election, says so.
  3. And therefore the head of the FBI, Director James Comey, must have lied to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee when he said that the FBI did request access but they were denied.

A brave stance to take, but okay. The FBI lied and cannot be trusted, and that's why you trust the FBI report.

Personally, in this matter I find Comey to be the more credible source. But either way, whichever source is correct, the partisan DNC hack or the FBI Director, the Mueller report comes out of this stinking like a bucket of prawns in the blazing sun.

The images of the serves were better for investigating

How do you know they were images of the servers? Who prepared the images? How were the images prepared? Who else had access to them? How do you know they weren't tampered with?

In the DNC lawsuit against Russia, they claimed that dozens of servers were hacked, but then handed over just two server images to Mueller's team. I think I may have stated four images earlier, if so I was mistaken. Shawn Henry testified to the Senate that they provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives. So just two images out of dozens of allegedly hacked servers.

Did the DNC vastly inflate the damage allegedly done in their lawsuit? That's fraud. Or did they suppress evidence in the Mueller investigation?

One way or the other, the DNC is being dishonest. They're either suppressing evidence or fraudulently claiming damage. Or possibly both.

Physical access to hundreds of severs in a rack is a pointless waste of time and resources.

Its not the physical access to the server boxes that matters for its own sake. Its the chain of custody of evidence.

Let us remember just how many conflicts of interest are here.

  • Crowdstrike, the people who made the alleged images of the server hard drives, was founded by Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow of the NATO-aligned Atlantic Council and a hawk on Russia.

  • Shawn Henry , the CEO of Crowdstrike, also works as an analyst on MSNBC, a partisan cable network that aggressively promotes Trump-Russia conspiracy theories. While under oath, Henry attempted to claim that they (Crowdstrike) knew when the Russian hackers exfiltrated the data from the DNC servers, until his attorneys reminded him that in fact they had no hard evidence that the data was exfiltrated at all.

  • In 2017, Crowdstrike had to withdraw unfounded claimed that Russia had hacked the Ukrainian military.

  • The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has invested $1 million in Crowdstrike, where they had made approximately 70% profit up to Sept 2020.

  • Hillary Clinton is another aggressive hawk on Russia. Her lawyer, Michael Sussmann, hired Crowdstrike under some remarkable conditions: Sussman's contract with Crowdstrike specifies that they are working for him, not the DNC, under attorney-client privilege.

  • Sussmann personally reviewed and redacted Crowdstrike's report to the FBI about the alleged hack. So the lawyer for a senior Democrat decided what (supposed) evidence the FBI investigators are permitted to see.

  • Sussmann, who has since been indicted for lying to the FBI, was also responsible for hiring Fusion GPS, who were behind the fraudulent Steele Dossier.

I mean, Trump is a dirty, lying, dishonest scoundrel, but these guys make him seem like Mr Honest.

I see you've got a noted partisan and pro-trump source for that.

Do you have any shred of evidence for this ad hominem?

Or do you just assume that anyone who does actual journalism and reports on the inconvenient facts that go against your Trump-Russia conspiracy theory must be "pro-trump" because you cannot conceive of a journalist reporting the facts without fear or favour? That's sad.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The scene of the crime was the server or servers allegedly hacked, not "the internet".

The attack was remote.

Specifically from Russia.

Personally, in this matter I find Comey to be the more credible source.

Okay. What specific requests did he make and in who denied them?

This "various at various levels" is kind of handwavey.

Don't forget Comey is the partisan republican who thought that making public statements about Hillary's emails before laying any charges in the middle of the Election run up, and gave the excuse that he thought it wouldn't matter. Comey: I was sure Clinton would win election when I reopened email inquiry

What specifics are there, then, noting that this guy can spin. It's plausible he approached crowdstrike on not the Dems for access. That would explain why the Dems say they weren't asked and Comey says he made many.

Shawn Henry testified to the Senate that they provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives.

Good on him. How many hard drives do you claim had evidence of the breach?

the Mueller report comes out of this stinking like a bucket of prawns in the blazing sun.

What utter rubbish. The Mueller report put people through the courts and locked them up.

"Oooh, it says my lord and saviour the criminal and rapist Trump colluded with the russians, so the well regarded republican special council must have made it all up and rigged the judges and juries somehow?"

Is that your argument. Because it doesn't stand much analysis does it.

Its not the physical access to the server boxes that matters for its own sake. Its the chain of custody of evidence.

The evidence convinced US intelligence agencies. Maybe this chain thing wasn't as questionable as you claim.

Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C.

Do you have any shred of evidence for this ad hominem?

Real clear investigations is right baised and utilizes sources that have Mixed records with facts: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

Do you have a better source or not?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The attack was remote.

So? The scene where the crime was committed was still the DNC servers, in American jurisdiction. If the crime occurred in Russia, it would not be under the FBI's jurisdiction.

Specifically from Russia.

The alleged* hacking attack was allegedly from Russia. We have no credible evidence of an actual hacking attack from anyone except the Democrats themselves (via their cutout Crowdstrike), and even they had to admit that they have no evidence that any data was actually removed from their servers. And we already know the DNC is not credible -- they're behind the fraudulent Steele Dossier.

The little evidence we actually do have (file metadata) strongly indicates that the files leaked to Wikileaks were not hacked over the internet but copied onto a USB stick in person. So unless you think the Russian GBU actually had an agent sneak into the DNC server room and copy the files, the Mueller theory of how the alleged crime was committed is looking pretty poor.

But then we know that Mueller doesn't have enough to actually charge any Russians with crimes. It's all just hugely expensive political theatre to try to save the debunked Trump-Russia DNC conspiracy theory and the fraudulent Steele Dossier.

Mueller's so-called evidence is tainted and thin as a cobweb. When Concord called his bluff and turned up in court to defend themselves against the charges, the prosecutors first tried to avoid having the case heard, then tried the good old "But my national security!" excuse which the judge refused to buy, then claimed the judge had misinterpreted the indictment documents, and finally were forced into an embarrassing back-down by dropping the charges rather than show how thin or non-existent the evidence is, or even whether a crime had been committed.

So we went from Mueller claiming to have iron-clad proof that the Kremlin had illegally spent vast amounts of money to influence the US election, to a private businessman spending less than $5000 for some Facebook ads with only the most tenuous connection to the election, and no legal requirement to disclose, hence no crime was committed. All charges dropped.

Back to the hacking:

  • Whatever evidence he has that the DNC servers were hacked is irreparably tainted. There was no independent collection of evidence.
  • Mueller cannot prove that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC servers over the internet. Crowdstrike admitted this.
  • He cannot prove the data was ever in Russian hands, he has only asserted that it was.
  • Or that Russia provided the data to Wikileaks. Again, just an assertion based on tainted data.
  • Whatever evidence he claims to have has never been tested, and probably never will be, and we know from the Concord debacle that Mueller makes claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. He talks big but can't deliver.
  • He failed to interview the most critically important witnesses to the alleged crime, Julian Assange, even though that witness knows who gave the data to Wikileaks, and Assange is not going anywhere.
  • By his own admission, at least one of his most important witnesses, Joseph Mifsud, that his indictment depends on, lied to him.

The only thing that Mueller can prove is that at some point the leaked data was copied onto a USB stick using the FAT file system, which prima facie suggests that the data was copied by a DNC insider who had physical access to the servers -- a theory which Mueller has not investigated.

The Mueller report has no credibility. It's a political hit job, not an independent, fair law enforcement investigation. And even as a hit job it is only innuendo and mud-slinging: "We can't prove that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia, but we know he did, for reasons we can't tell you or prove in court but trust us, just as you trusted us about Concord wink"

The Mueller report put people through the courts and locked them up.

Yes, for obstruction. Politically motivated toy-town charges, and selective prosecution to boot.

Where are the obstruction charges for Crowdstrike and the DNC for refusing to allow the FBI access to the untampered crime scene?

Where are the obstruction charges for Mifsud?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So? The scene where the crime was committed was still the DNC servers, in American jurisdiction.

The crime was the hacking of the servers, in which case the scene of the crime was in Russia where the details of the hack would have been.

If the crime occurred in Russia, it would not be under the FBI's jurisdiction.

How is this not semantics? The FBI investigated because the victims were in the USA.

The little evidence we actually do have (file metadata) strongly indicates that the files leaked to Wikileaks were not hacked over the internet but copied onto a USB stick in person.

Remind me of that evidence?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Mueller report put people through the courts and locked them up.

To play Devil's Advocate, I'm willing to accept the obstruction and fraud convictions and ignore the selective prosecution aspects of the charges, or the ways that the DoJ can and does coerce guilty pleas out of defendants even when they are innocent.

So, for the sake of the argument, let's say that Mueller did find genuine cases of obstruction and other crimes.

How does that prove the Russian hacking narrative? "Paul Manafort cheated on his taxes, therefore Russia hacked the DNC server." 🙄

Out of 34 individuals charged, and three companies, just seven individuals have been found guilty, and they all seem to be pretty small potatoes.

  • Paul Manafort was convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to less than 4 years jail after the prosecutor asked for 24 years.

  • Rick Gates pleaded guilty to conspiracy for trying to hide Manafort's tax fraud.

  • George Papadopoulos was given a small fine and sentenced to 14 days jail for stating the wrong date on which he had a drunken conversation with Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian agent who Mueller has failed to investigate despite stating that Mifsud lied to him.

  • Michael Flynn was convicted of acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey while working on the Trump campaign, over an unrelated issue regarding his lobbying regarding the extradition of a Turkish cleric living in the USA. (Aside: the judge in the case displayed a remarkable level of both bias and incompetence, accusing Flynn of treason for working for a foreign government while national security adviser, then having to withdraw that statement as factually untrue. Oops.)

  • Alex van der Zwaan was convicted of lying about his work for a Ukrainian political party in 2012 and sentenced to 30 days jail.

  • Richard Pinedo was sentenced to 6 months prison and 6 months home detention for identity theft by helping online users circumvent PayPal identity verification, which he allegedly sold to the Russian hackers.

  • Michael Cohen said the plans to build a Trump Tower charges in Moscow were shelved in January 2016 when it was actually June. Oh my giddy aunt, it's the crime of the century 🙄

That kind of feels like Mueller was taking a shotgun approach of firing off as many indictments as possible hoping a couple would stick. His record isn't looking great. All charges against the companies were dropped when they called his bluff and turned up in court to contest the charges, and the convictions that he did get are either completely unrelated, or at best only tangentially related.

It's like Mueller was put in charge of finding a mass murderer and managed to arrest a handful of jay-walkers and a guy who dropped some trash on the sidewalk.

"the well regarded republican special council"

Only well-regarded by people who approve of kangeroo courts, and those who take a See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil approach to the clear and obvious weaknesses in the case and the indictment. It has more holes than a colander and is obviously politically motivated.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Don't forget Comey is the partisan republican

I remind you that Comey was appointed by Barrack Obama, and was fired by Donald Trump. Your insinuation that he is trying to protect Trump is a pretty wild conspiracy theory.

Regarding the Clinton emails in 2016, Comey was caught between a rock and a hard place. Had he kept quiet about reopening the investigation into her case, and she had won the election, he would have been chastised for the cover-up.

If anything Comey was too forgiving of Clinton. Even after finding that Clinton had broken the law and was improperly and illegally handling classified emails, he recommended against prosecution.

Shawn Henry testified to the Senate that they provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard drives.

Good on him. How many hard drives do you claim had evidence of the breach?

It's not my claim. In a lawsuit against Russia, the DNC claim that over 330 servers were hacked by Russia but Crowdstrike only provided two hard drive images to the FBI. If the Russians had genuinely hacked 330 servers, as the lawsuit alleges, then Crowdstrike (acting as the DNC's agent) is suppressing evidence of crimes from Mueller. That's obstruction. If the Russians had only hacked two servers, then the DNC are committing fraud by falsely claiming 330 servers were hacked.

If more than two but fewer than 330 servers were hacked, then they are committing both obstruction and fraud.

No matter how you look at it, this is bad. Real bad.

The evidence convinced US intelligence agencies.

The same US intelligence agencies who spent years conspiring with private social media companies to censor factual speech about Covid because the facts were inconvenient.

The same intelligence agencies who conspired with the mainstream media to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The same intelligence agencies who conspired with the Bush regime to lie about having irrefutable proof of the existence of Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMD program, giving the US a pretext to wage an unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

By the way, Mueller was part of that. Just one month before the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, Mueller falsely testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Iraq (as well as six other countries) were actively sponsoring terrorists in the USA, and that Iraq was continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In 2013, Mueller falsely testified to the House Judiciary Committee that the illegal NSA mass surveillance programs collecting data about Americans without a warrant complied "in full with U.S. law and with basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution" (his words).

So it seems that Mueller has a long history of dishonesty and inventing imaginary conspiracies while ignoring and covering up genuine conspiracies.

Real clear investigations is right baised and utilizes sources that have Mixed records with facts: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/

Did your brain switch off as soon as you saw "right-center bias"? Everyone has a bias, and the existence of a (supposed) bias does not tell you anything about any specific story or article.

Real Clear gets a MBFC Credibility Rating of HIGH CREDIBILITY which is as good as the state-aligned BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and better than The Guardian. This doesn't say much for MBFC's own credibility, that they think that the BBC, WaPo and NY Times are highly credible. That suggests that they have a huge bias in favour of establishment narratives which remain safely inside the Overton Window and don't rock the boat.

But at least you know that Real Clear is no worse than the media organisations that spent years unquestioningly parroting every single lie the US made to justify their unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your insinuation that he is trying to protect Trump is a pretty wild conspiracy theory.

He's a republican. He's used his influence to contribute to sinking hillary's election campaign, when the standard, for good reason, is to not discuss charges that have not been brought.

His different recall of the facts than the dnc without specifics is likely contributed to by his point of view.

In a lawsuit against Russia, the DNC claim that over 330 servers were hacked by Russia but Crowdstrike only provided two hard drive images to the FBI.

The suit details the necessary fixes; the DNC had to “decommission more than 140 servers, remove and reinstall all software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers.”

Reads like the servers were rebuilt. That goes some way to expalin why they couldn't supply the images by the time the FBI were invovled.

Everyone has a bias,

Not everyone uses sources that are unreliable.