I was always of the opinion they didn’t want Nunes peaking in the goodies

Fcker leaks more than a sieve.

Seth Rich, not the Russians, released the DNC emails.

(02-19-2018 04:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Well boys.... politifact says your infowars sources are full of shyt. I’ll believe politifact thank you.

So you say James Comey was lying when he testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee? I'm fairly sure he has before so I guess it's possible. Right?

(02-19-2018 04:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Well boys.... politifact says your infowars sources are full of shyt. I’ll believe politifact thank you.

Washington Times:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...e-to-insp/

Politico
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/2...ity-239866

Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/...ccess.html

Fake News CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/...index.html

And even your article states the FBI didn't. Trump's claim of the CIA not checking it is what made it incorrect and throwing Podesta's name. Semantics my dear boy.

World Net Daily is fake news

(02-19-2018 04:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Well boys.... politifact says your infowars sources are full of shyt. I’ll believe politifact thank you.

You seriously need remedial reading comprehension training. The very link you posted clearly states that the DNC did not turn their server over to the FBI.

What you are trying to provide as proof that they did is a Politifact article about an error Trump made in a tweet.

If you are trying to say that the FBI did have access to the servers then I expect you to make a post calling for the indictment of James Comey for perjury.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...nc-servers

Quote:he FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.

The director was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a rare open session on Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in news reports over whether the FBI asked to examine its servers directly.

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-d...l-servers/

Quote:In a statement to WIRED, a senior FBI law enforcement official wrote in an email Thursday that "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated." This contrasts with what DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told Buzzfeed in an email: “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers.”

In its statement, the FBI agreed with the DNC's implication that it had instead relied on data from Crowdstrike. But the Bureau points the finger for its lack of independent evaluation squarely at the DNC. According to the FBI official, "This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/...trike.html

Quote:The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.

Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.

That’s not meant as an insult to CrowdStrike, which is, undoubtedly, a first-rate security firm that does extremely sophisticated and reliable investigative work. Calling in CrowdStrike was a good move on the part of the DNC. I’ve even argued that the DNC should have been relying more heavily on private tech firms to provide its email services and security from the outset. But it’s one thing to trust tech companies to provide email servers and cloud storage and quite another to rely exclusively on them to collect and analyze evidence of a major security incident attributed to a foreign national government.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-directo...c-servers/

Quote:The FBI requested access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) servers and servers for other Democratic entities that were hacked during the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday, but its request was not met.

In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies’ findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were “multiple requests at different levels” for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a “highly respected private company” was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.

“Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,” he said. The company to which Comey was referring is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company doing the internal defense and investigation for the DNC.

(02-19-2018 04:57 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Well boys.... politifact says your infowars sources are full of shyt. I’ll believe politifact thank you.

And Politifact says the DNC never gave the FBI access to the servers.

Nunes leaks. That's Rich.

(02-19-2018 05:03 PM)Claw Wrote:  Seth Rich, not the Russians, released the DNC emails.

The FBI has hired OJ to find the real killer.

Think this has already turned into a Mach 'hit and run'?

(02-19-2018 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Think this has already turned into a Mach 'hit and run'?

I warned you guys he shouldn't be driving.

Why wasn't a search warrant obtained for the servers?

(02-19-2018 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why wasn't a search warrant obtained for the servers?

Good question.

(02-19-2018 06:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why wasn't a search warrant obtained for the servers?

Good question.

Because that would prove the narrative incorrect. Especially if Hilldawg lost. If she'd won it'd been she overcame amazing odds with a tampered election for Trump. Just a theory.

(02-19-2018 06:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why wasn't a search warrant obtained for the servers?

Good question.

Apparently because the DNC was calling the shots when it came to the FBI.

(02-19-2018 06:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why wasn't a search warrant obtained for the servers?

Good question.

Search warrant for what? The people hacked have to report the crime and ask for an investigation. If they don't, the government can't just seize their computers without some basis.

The DNC does not call the shots with the FBI. They felt the info they had was more than sufficient and they didn’t need the physical servers..... let the wnd and infowars crowd speculate. The FBI said it was sufficient.

(02-19-2018 07:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why wasn't a search warrant obtained for the servers?

Good question.

Search warrant for what? The people hacked have to report the crime and ask for an investigation. If they don't, the government can't just seize their computers without some basis.

Maybe if they think a crime has been committed and then suddenly those who reported it don't want to cooperate. Dunno. I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Yea let a company that donated sums of money to the DNC inspect servers to see if they were hacked by the boogey man. Yea seems plausible.