Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Hellokitty]

Even Credico says it was a joke. Anyone with half a brain can see that Mueller railroaded him, and that you're a moron.

Maybe it's a lesson, you shouldn't joke about death threats.

Perhaps we should start locking up all the people making death threats against the police...

 

[Billiejeens]

The Electoral College tabulates and forwards the votes from the people who voted for President

No they don't. The electors actually vote for the president. Trump won the presidency because he got 304 electoral votes, not because he got 62 million people's votes.

You are an idiot.
Dismissed.

I’m the one that actually understands how the constitution works.

“the people” don’t elect the president. Never have. That’s how the constitution works.

Troll

Who’s trolling? I’m providing accurate factual information. You’ve provided nothing.

Between the two of us, you’re trolling.

The people didn’t elect Trump. He was elected because a minority of voters was able to collect enough electoral votes to put him in office. It wasn’t the will of the people. The people mostly voted for someone else.

Factually incorrect

Thanks for nothing troll.

There is no National popular vote for the President.
The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

It goes like this - (imagine a town crier) Mr. Electors, The people of the great state of NC Express their will for you to pledge the will of the people's vote for Candidate Donald J. Trump.
So NC goes for Trump. The Grand poobah writes down:
The will of the people in North Carolina has decided for Candidate Trump.

This goes on through all 50 States.

Trump was The Will Of The People .

The will of the people is carried out in each state

I don't really know why people like you who claim to be intelligent don't get it but you don't.

 

[Billiejeens]

Why? If it's not illegal, why would law enforcement, or anyone, give a shit?

Because the communications had to do with the release, by Wikileaks, of material stolen from the DNC by the GRU in order to influence our election. The GRU being an intel arm of a foreign adversary. Got it?

When are you going to get it through your head that nothing Wikileaks did is illegal? Also, the GRU had nothing to do with this. There is zero evidence that it did.

On the other hand, Hillary paid foreigners, and indirectly Russians, for smearing mud on Trump. You lack of concern about that proves that your a douchebag.

You are correct on all counts.

 

[Billiejeens]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

The Mueller team stated that they never had access - they proceeded on 3rd hand information.

 

[colfax_m]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

 

[colfax_m]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Billiejeens]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

 

[colfax_m]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

It’s really not. It’s with people who are willfully ignorant by saying idiotic things like “there’s no evidence” that it was Russia (especially when they then claim it was Seth Rich which actually has no evidence).

I have no problem with Mueller. He demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia.

 

[bottlecap]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

The "will of the people" CANNOT be determined correctly when Super Wealthy Interests control the flow of information. Yes, Conservatives have outlets for their point of view, but that pales in comparison to the the Gigantic Mouthpieces on the left-wing side.

Considering that the educational system, most newspapers, the TV networks, Hollywood and Silicone Valley ALL favor the left-wing, or Democratic, point of view, most Americans do not hear both sides of the story. While it is not as bad as China or Russia, the US information flow is dramatically skewed. Flip the script, where TRUMP got favorable coverage and Hillary was savaged and TRUMP would have gotten a Clear Mandate.
not established.
In any case, unless the MEDIA become unbiased referees, the true "Will of the People" is not clear.

 

[Billiejeens]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

Your quarrel is with the poster that I am educating.

 

[bripat9643]

Stone talking to Wikileaks about stolen emails isn't a crime.

Stone conspired with the thieves over their distribution.

It's no difference than discussing with somebody who just stole a rolex, where he could fence it.

Wikileaks didn't steal them, moron, so no he didn't.

 

[colfax_m]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

The "will of the people" CANNOT be determined correctly when Super Wealthy Interests control the flow of information. Yes, Conservatives have outlets for their point of view, but that pales in comparison to the the Gigantic Mouthpieces on the left-wing side.

Considering that the educational system, most newspapers, the TV networks, Hollywood and Silicone Valley ALL favor the left-wing, or Democratic, point of view, most Americans do not hear both sides of the story. While it is not as bad as China or Russia, the US information flow is dramatically skewed. Flip the script, where TRUMP got favorable coverage and Hillary was savaged and TRUMP would have gotten a Clear Mandate.
not established.
In any case, unless the MEDIA become unbiased referees, the true "Will of the People" is not clear.

You give far too much credit to any source being able to influence national narrative. The right wing biased narrative has flourished despite what you say, based on a surprising amount of disinformation. Moreover, the right wing has systematically delegitimized (again, based on misinformation) sources outside their own narrative. This leads to the types of conspiracy theories and alternative reality seeking we have now (as evidence, the idea that Russia didn't hack the DNC right here in this thread).

I don't know what "the will of the people" is or isn't. No one does. Anyone attempting to claim such is just using it as a way to justify whatever they wanted in the first place.

 

[bripat9643]

Ellsberg "gave" classified info to the New York Times.
Was he breaking any laws when he did that?

Elsberg broke the law, the same as if he had left classified materials on a park bench. What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

Nope. you're the one who is confused about that. Wikileaks is the equivalent of the person finding them on the park bench.

 

[bottlecap]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

It’s really not. It’s with people who are willfully ignorant by saying idiotic things like “there’s no evidence” that it was Russia (especially when they then claim it was Seth Rich which actually has no evidence).

I have no problem with Mueller. He demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia.

Will Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Finally Tell the Truth About Seth Rich?

In a new set of court filings, lawyers for Rich's brother are battling to get a deposition with the imprisoned Assange.

www.rollingstone.com

WASHINGTON — "There is one person who can almost singlehandedly put to rest one of the more cruel conspiracy theories to infect American politics this century. That person is Julian Assange"
----------

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

It’s really not. It’s with people who are willfully ignorant by saying idiotic things like “there’s no evidence” that it was Russia (especially when they then claim it was Seth Rich which actually has no evidence).

I have no problem with Mueller. He demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia.

WikiLeaks' Assange: Russia didn't give us emails

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeated his claim that the Russian government was not the source of hacked Democratic campaign emails his organization released before the US presidential election.

www.cnn.com

(CNN)"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeated his claim that the Russian government was not the source of hacked Democratic campaign emails his organization released before the US presidential election."

 

[colfax_m]

The will "of the people" vote ( which always elects the President) is expressed individually in each of the States

Then at best you could say it’s “the will of the states”. Calling it “the will of the people” is simply inaccurate. The people’s will is filtered, translated and transformed through an arbitrary and archaic system of the electoral college.

Your quarrel is with the poster that I am educating.

You're not educating. You're rationalizing. Trump was elected, but not as a result of the "will of the people".

 

[bripat9643]

Stone conspired with the thieves over their distribution.

Like the New York Times conspired with Ellsberg?

You confuse one, which was conspiracy in the handling of stolen property. Remember , everybody who knowingly deals with stolen property is a co-conspirator to the original crime. (hint, think buying a stolen rolex)

Elsberg did not commit a "theft", he violated other laws, such as transferring "classified" materials to someone without the required clearance to receive it. But the person receiving the classified material can't be charged with disclosure.

It's not stolen property, anymore than a photo copy of the Pentagon papers is stolen property.

 

[bripat9643]

You confuse one, which was conspiracy in the handling of stolen property.

Did the New York Times think Ellsberg was the legal owner of classified materials?
Do you think he owned those classified materials?

Elsberg had full legal access and thus posession of the pentagon papers. The NYT's did not communicate with Elsberg prior to his removing the classified material in violation of rules of storage.

Nope. He signed a non-disclosure agreement.

 

[bripat9643]

What confuses you is that the person finding the classified material committed no crime by receiving it.

And Wikileaks committed no crime by receiving and publishing emails.

The e-mails were "stolen" property, the pentagon papers were NOT "stolen" Hence a complete difference in those receiving or dealing with them.

Nope, they weren't stolen by Wikeleaks. They only recieved copies. You yourself say that made it legal for Wikileaks to have them.

 

[colfax_m]

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

It’s really not. It’s with people who are willfully ignorant by saying idiotic things like “there’s no evidence” that it was Russia (especially when they then claim it was Seth Rich which actually has no evidence).

I have no problem with Mueller. He demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia.

Will Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Finally Tell the Truth About Seth Rich?

In a new set of court filings, lawyers for Rich's brother are battling to get a deposition with the imprisoned Assange.

www.rollingstone.com

WASHINGTON — "There is one person who can almost singlehandedly put to rest one of the more cruel conspiracy theories to infect American politics this century. That person is Julian Assange"
----------

No, I'm just going by what the FBI has admitted, being that they never conducted an independent investigation of the DNC server/cloud based imaging, nor did they review a final report from Crowdstrike.
It's amusing how liberals who support abolishing ICE and now Police are so trusting of the FBI.

You're purposely distorting the truth.

"Source close to the investigation says FBI didn't need the DNC servers because it already had the forensic data from upstream collection."


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.

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.

thehill.com

Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails


"Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails."

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

Huge: Crowdstrike CEO Has NO Direct Evidence Russia Stole/Exfiltrated DNC Emails

www.redstate.com

Overstated and out of context. There was ample information and evidence that demonstrated it was Russia beyond any reasonable doubt. Far more information and evidence was provided by law enforcement that went way beyond the capabilities that CrowdStrike had available to them.

Although CrowdStrike didn’t watch the files be exfiltrated, the DoJ was able to review traffic logs which demonstrated such.

Factually false

It’s in the Mueller report, troll. They tracked the data movement from the DNC servers to the Russian’s AWS server in Arizona.

You have no facts.

I seriously doubt that the Mueller team had access to the DNC server. We know the FBI was not allowed access.
And the fact that Mueller never heard of GPS Fusion cast doubt that his team even conducted an investigation.

There is one thing I would bet on.....the DNC Server has been obliterated.

Access to the actual servers isn’t necessary and would be highly unusual. This is a cyber crime. The evidence isn’t housed on a physical device. It’s data, which the DoJ most certainly did have access to.

The idea that his team didn’t conduct an investigation and made up their whole report on the hacking is beyond ridiculous.

Your quarrel is with Mueller.

It’s really not. It’s with people who are willfully ignorant by saying idiotic things like “there’s no evidence” that it was Russia (especially when they then claim it was Seth Rich which actually has no evidence).

I have no problem with Mueller. He demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Russia.

WikiLeaks' Assange: Russia didn't give us emails

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeated his claim that the Russian government was not the source of hacked Democratic campaign emails his organization released before the US presidential election.

www.cnn.com

(CNN)"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeated his claim that the Russian government was not the source of hacked Democratic campaign emails his organization released before the US presidential election."

Of course he said that. If he had any evidence to back it up, I might take him seriously. Unfortunately for him, the DoJ obtained the messages sent between Wikileaks and the GRU persona "Guccifer 2.0", so the evidence betrays his assertion.

 

[berg80]

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The Roger Stone Commutation Is Even More Corrupt Than It Seems

The president’s clemency for his confidante is totally unsurprising—which is part of what makes it so bad.

www.lawfareblog.com

"But the predictable nature of Trump’s action should not obscure its rank corruption. In fact, the predictability makes the commutation all the more corrupt, the capstone of an all-but-open attempt on the president’s part to obstruct justice in a self-protective fashion over a protracted period of time. That may sound like hyperbole, but it’s actually not. Trump publicly encouraged Stone not to cooperate with Robert Mueller’s investigation, he publicly dangled clemency as a reward for silence, and he has now delivered. The act is predictable precisely because the corrupt action is so naked."