Ukraine meddling with the 2016 elections.
Can you explain the "Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election" conspiracy theory for me?
Do people think that it was Ukraine, not Russia that was responsible for Hillarys emails being released? I've been looking for evidence or a clear explanation but can't find anything other than the Crowdstrike stuff that has been debunked.
If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it?
I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump?
It's basically just Trump saying "No U" to all the proof that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump get elected.
Also, he could use the fact that Ukraine is investigating the DNC to legitimize the conspiracy theory and use it as ammo to attack Democrats.
The whole theory really is pretty nuts. I did some more research, the theory really is that Russia was not involved, it was the DNC and Ukraine that hacked the DNC and then leaked all those DNC emails. I mean, come on.
Also,
Crowdstrike isn't a Ukranian company. It's located in California and publicly traded.
There's no evidence that the servers are in Ukraine or were ever in Ukraine.
The FBI did have access to the data from the servers. They used it as evidence to indict 12 Russian hacker for hacking the DNC and other Democrats. The indictment explains in detail exactly how they hacked the DNC. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
There are a ton of examples like this one:
Quote
For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails.
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails.
What proof? The Russia investigations are over. There never was any proof. It has been 3 years, how much more time do you need to produce it? Some one who has a story about how they think it happened is not the same thing as physical evidence, such as the hardware itself. One is a theory, the other is physical evidence. Evidence now points to a coverup within the DNC of their own crimes. The fact that they never released the server to the FBI is a significant factor. Crowdstrike has the raw data. That is why Trump mentioned it in his phone call to the Ukrainian president, because he knew this would be a good opportunity to use the countless, endless, and baseless accusations against him to draw attention to some real election meddling in 2016, including physical evidence. Now millions of people are looking into Crowdstrike as Biden's long history of pay for play deals get exposed in the process.
By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas?
Digital evidence in a computer related crime is just as valuable (and admissible in court) in a computer related crime as physical evidence in a murder.
Unless you're dusting for fingerprints or checking for DNA, an image of a hard drive or server is the exact same thing as having the actual hardware.
It's not like when you take a picture of a picture, where you lose a little bit of quality each time. When you image a drive it's a byte for byte exact digital duplicate. There is no way to hide anything from being digitally imaged, including data that may have been deleted but recoverable.
For these reason, it's standard practice to image a drive when practical rather than physically seize it. Also, I'm pretty sure when they actually seize computers or servers, they just image the hard drive and any ram and then investigate the images. Not 100% sure how the FBI does it, but many other LE agencies do it that way.
It also seems incredibly unlikely that anyone could trick the FBI digital forensics team (world class) into thinking all those hacks happened at those exact times and dates by those exact Russians.
We've already discussed the subpoenas. I think they're legal, you think they're not actually subpoenas. I think a judge is going to rule on a couple soon (McGhan and Bolton I think), so we'll get to find out for sure. If I'm wrong I will definitely let you know I was wrong and you were right.
Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.
I highly suggest you do some research. I'm not saying that to be a smart ass. Go try to prove yourself wrong to yourself, just start googling and clicking links and judging each source on it's own. IF you seriously think Crowdstrike is owned by a Russian Oligarch then you've been reading too many conspiracy blogs or something.
What the fuck are you even rambling on about "digital evidence". No one is talking about "digital evidence" but you. What is important is the FBI has FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE by PERSONALLY INSPECTING the servers, not simply taking the report of a private Democrat party affiliated security company with incentive to provide false information. One more time, it is a FACT that the FBI was never allowed to inspect the DNC's servers that were so called hacked by Russia. Speaking of "digital evidence" the files in question were copied at rates indicating they were copied via a USB thumb drive, not via the internet, of course that kind of "digital evidence" doesn't matter when it contradicts your story of course. "it is incredibly unlikely", well fuck, you say it is unlikely! Case closed, that is all the proof we need, you think it is unlikely! Why didn't you just say that before? Unlikely of course unless they had their own incentives to cover it up, but lets all keep pretending the FBI being barred from a first hand inspection of the servers is not a big deal and is not a breech of custody of evidence standards.
We did discuss the non-subpoena subpoenas issued before the official vote, and I proved conclusively they were not subpoenas but requests for information, and showed actually legally enforceable subpoenas for comparison, then you went quiet and refused to discuss the issue. Now I see your strategy is to wait for a new real subpoena to be issued so you can pretend as if the previously issued letters were real subpoenas. Who cares if the Democrat party is lying to everyone along with the media right? What is important is they are on "my side", and the ends justify the means right? No one said anything about Crowdstrike being run by a Russian oligarch, that is a non-sequitur and a straw man.
At least I made an argument. You substituted Tumblr in lieu of having independent thoughts. Bruh... that's deep. Don't forget to include some yoga pants shots.
