The fact-checkers went into overdrive after President Trump’s joint press conference with Vladimir Putin Monday, with The New York Times, for example, publishing “8 Suspect Claims From the Trump-Putin News Conference.”
Among those suspect claims was Trump’s assertion that the DNC never handed over its hacked servers to the FBI. Linda Qiu said Trump’s claim was misleading:
Mr. Trump is conflating two issues and referring to conspiracy theories that the Justice Department has rejected.
He is right that F.B.I. agents never examined the Democratic National Committee servers themselves. However, agents instead coordinated with the D.N.C. to obtain forensics from a third-party security firm that James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, described to Congress last year as an “appropriate substitute.”
Oh, so agents coordinated with a third-party security firm that James Comey said was an appropriate substitute. Well, as long as Comey was satisfied. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York, however, took notice of the “he is right” part of those fact-checks.
Much media debunking of Trump DNC server comments. Politifact says 'False'; Politico says 'unmoored from reality.' But DNC did not, in fact, turn over server(s), no? Maybe that's unimportant; yes, there's other evidence. But did DNC hand over servers or not? From Comey 3/20/17: pic.twitter.com/X04ZhmUNsb
— Byron York (@ByronYork) July 17, 2018
It’s right there in the transcript: the DNC didn’t turn over the servers. And as Comey noted, best practice is to get access to the machines themselves. So why the end-run around the easiest and best possible course of action? Was the FBI somehow incapable of doing the work?
So, was Trump lying when he said, “You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server”?
Sounds like something that would be important to know before making Pearl Harbor comparisons
— Yougotmail! (@ReviewedMedia) July 17, 2018
"well we never got direct access to the machines themselves…" "…best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves…"
— michael storz (@smarttakeguru) July 17, 2018
He was the Director of the FBI. Who are the self-described "my folks" who decided it was appropriate to substitute a hired friend of the DNC for the FBI when this was working out to be a major problem? James Comey decided it was okay. He was the boss. Careless or just lazy?
— Judy Huggins (@Elfinmirror) July 17, 2018
"My folks" = Peter strzok
— Jared Johnson (@jroojdmd) July 17, 2018
Comey's last sentence, "my folks"? Strzok? McCabe? Ohr?
Kinda general…..Find out who said it and interview them.
— Admiral B B Wall (@SSBN624Blue) July 17, 2018
There were 140 servers, and they gave images of the servers to the FBI. There is no need to give over the actual servers if they have an image.
— Jack G (@Jackg1818) July 17, 2018
Might want to follow the chain of evidence and see if "images" are admissible… Shock at what you will find… Alteration…..
— Lee Collins (@Silver28208Lee) July 17, 2018
Reminds us of Hillary’s IT guy who “accidentally” ran BleachBit on her email server, wiping the drive — after asking around on Reddit if there was some way to “remove or replace [the] to/from address on archived emails.” He pleaded the Fifth, by the way.
Agreed. This is really confusing. It looks to me like all the forensics were outsourced to crowdstrike (hired by Hillary) then much later (images and info) to other experts. The government relied on this info.
— Lv Dawgs (@smith_barnara) July 17, 2018
If you know IT you know that someone could produce a report or images of the server that is not actually true. FBI wouldn't allow us to hire our own people to check out servers under investigation. We need Equal Application of the Law!
— Linda (@LindaBanyac) July 17, 2018
The question is did FBI get the evidence it needed? If answer is yes than the whole thing is stupid and the fact checkers have it right.
— Eric Rothschild (@rothschild_eric) July 17, 2018
They did not get evidence. did not even get to look at the evidence. They relied on someone else to tell them what the evidence was and no one produced the actual server in question. I don't know any officer of the law that would rely on that. Hearsay not acceptable in court.
— Judy Huggins (@Elfinmirror) July 17, 2018
Wouldn't that make any evidence hearsay?
— Melancthon Smith (a “PLEBIAN”) (@jbaker50) July 17, 2018
No, it's not an appropriate substitute. You can't run data recovery software from "forensics". You would need the actually physical hard drive to do that.
— Neal Eger (@neal_eger) July 17, 2018
No. The Russian hacking findings come from a private company that has huge democrat ties. Democrats investigated themselves on the server.https://t.co/u7FJL3fCZd
— Jack McKraken (@JackMckraken) July 17, 2018
To argue with an analogy; If someone broke into your house, smashed the windows and tossed the dressers, would you call the cops or the cleaners? DNCC called the cleaners instead of the FBI.
— David A Prinz (@davidaprinz) July 17, 2018
It's certainly not unimportant. There is no credible evidence that the DNC server was hacked at all, much less by Russia. A simple resolution to this controversy is for the FBI to forensically analyze the servers as they should have done immediately without asking permission.
— GOD'S ARMY (@Brenda06135) July 17, 2018
The servers weren't turned over, and others get to pick and choose what is given to investigators. This is unreal.
— Adam Liette (@w8flh_adam) July 17, 2018
How many civilians being investigated by the FBI get to keep their hardware and give the govt. a "copy" of its contents?
— Mike Findlay (@MikFin) July 17, 2018
So the servers weren’t in FBI possession. They were never quarantined. Forensic analysis completed. Chain of custody established. Taken apart at the NSA or DARPA. They just let the pros “do it”. Kinda like calling in Geek Squad. Hard to believe.
— JD (@jwdixon321) July 17, 2018
To be fair, there are plenty arguing that this is a tech issue and disk images are as good if not better than the actual machines (even if Comey testified otherwise).
But before anyone jumps on us for pushing a conspiracy theory, we’d just like to say we’d have much more confidence if the FBI had examined the servers themselves rather than asking permission and relying on a third-party. Is that wrong?
Maybe DNC Chair Tom Perez can clear all this up once and for all … or maybe not.
Tom Perez dodges twice when asked why he's refusing to let the FBI access the DNC's servers. pic.twitter.com/I6LBkys1Us
— Ryan Saavedra ?? (@RealSaavedra) July 16, 2018
WOW: DNC chair Tom Perez REALLY didn't want to answer this simple question about the FBI and DNC servers https://t.co/vFylhqhqeD
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 16, 2018