Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[Hellokitty]

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

DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaks during a Florida delegation breakfast, Mond

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.

You do realize neither Crowdstrike nor the FBI investigated the Podesta emails and all Crowdstrike investigated was the hack?

 

[berg80]

Stone juror: Trump ‘attacking citizens for performing their civic duty’

A juror in the Roger Stone trial is coming to the defense of the foreperson who has become the target of attacks from President Trump and his allies in the conservative media. &#8220…

thehill.com

 

[berg80]

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

DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaks during a Florida delegation breakfast, Mond

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.

You do realize neither Crowdstrike nor the FBI investigated the Podesta emails and all Crowdstrike investigated was the hack?

U.S. Charges Russian GRU Officers with International Hacking and Related Influence and Disinformation Operations

A grand jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania has indicted seven defendants, all officers in the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, for computer hacking, wire fraud, aggravated...

www.justice.gov

 

[Billiejeens]

Stone always held the ace card when it came to a pardon or commutation. Trump couldn't afford to take the chance Stone would find jail for 40 months so objectionable after what he did for Trump that he might be willing to finally tell the truth. The truth he withheld from Mueller and Congress. The truth that Trump perjured himself when he said he never spoke to Stone about Wikileaks' document dumps.

Describe the offense that you are pretending happened here.
I read the Wiki docs the instant that they were available, if I had talked to Candidate Trump, describe the offense that I would be guilty of.

 

[Hellokitty]

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."

TRUMP acted because Stone was going to be sent to a prison infected with COVID. Stone is 68 and and has underlying heath issues. Democrats are releasing criminals who have gone on to commit crimes because of COVID risks, yet they want to whine about Stone...

 

[berg80]

[/B]

Stone juror: Trump ‘attacking citizens for performing their civic duty’

A juror in the Roger Stone trial is coming to the defense of the foreperson who has become the target of attacks from President Trump and his allies in the conservative media. &#8220…

thehill.com

"Lost amid the avalanche of allegations about the trial and sentencing of Roger Stone are some critical facts and a striking irony: The jury foreperson, who has been the subject recently of numerous ad hominem attacks, was actually one of the strongest advocates for the rights of the defendant and for a rigorous process. She expressed skepticism at some of the government’s claims and was one of the last people to vote to convict on the charge that took most of our deliberation time.

Stone received a fair trial. But events since his trial threaten to undermine the equal administration of justice."

 

[berg80]

TRUMP acted because Stone was going to be sent to a prison infected with COVID.

Gosh, you are far more gullible than I thought.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Picture says 1000 words

 

[colfax_m]

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

What's wild about it? We have testimony under oath from Rick Gates and others about how Trump was coordinating with Stone during the campaign. Such coordination would be hardly surprising given their relationship.

Yet Trump claimed he couldn't remember anything about it.

 

[Billiejeens]

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."

TRUMP acted because Stone was going to be sent to a prison infected with COVID. Stone is 68 and and has underlying heath issues. Democrats are releasing criminals who have gone on to commit crimes because of COVID risks, yet they want to whine about Stone...

They like political prisoners.

 

[colfax_m]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

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

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

Proving that Trump (or anyone else) lied wouldn't be easy. We already have testimony that Trump and the campaign was talking to Stone. Proving that Trump knew that he was lying in his testimony wouldn't be easy. Especially given that they were unable to depose Trump due to his refusal to do so.

 

[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

DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaks during a Florida delegation breakfast, Mond

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

DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaks during a Florida delegation breakfast, Mond

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.

What did those messages say? I've never seen them posted anywhere. Furthermore, Assange never claimed he got the emails from Guccifer.

It's in the Mueller report. Right around page 45. Take a gander for yourself.

 

[Billiejeens]

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

What's wild about it? We have testimony under oath from Rick Gates and others about how Trump was coordinating with Stone during the campaign. Such coordination would be hardly surprising given their relationship.

Yet Trump claimed he couldn't remember anything about it.

The wildest of conspiracy theories supported solely by the Democratic Media.

Wiki - to the world - We are going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
Stone - to anyone that would listen - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
BJ and everyone else paying attention - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.

The left -President Trump -did you hear this from Stone?
President Trump- I don't remember ( because literally everyone paying attention was talking about it.)

 

[Billiejeens]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

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

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

Proving that Trump (or anyone else) lied wouldn't be easy. We already have testimony that Trump and the campaign was talking to Stone. Proving that Trump knew that he was lying in his testimony wouldn't be easy. Especially given that they were unable to depose Trump due to his refusal to do so.

That's false
They did depose him.

 

[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

DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaks during a Florida delegation breakfast, Mond

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.

You do realize neither Crowdstrike nor the FBI investigated the Podesta emails and all Crowdstrike investigated was the hack?

Not true.

Crowdstrike didn't investigate Podesta's hack, but the DoJ did. The results of that investigation are on page 37 of the Mueller report. They tracked the spearphishing campaign that they used to get Podesta's emails back to the GRU.

 

[colfax_m]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

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

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

Proving that Trump (or anyone else) lied wouldn't be easy. We already have testimony that Trump and the campaign was talking to Stone. Proving that Trump knew that he was lying in his testimony wouldn't be easy. Especially given that they were unable to depose Trump due to his refusal to do so.

That's false
They did depose him.

You're right. Technically they did depose him. But they weren't allowed to interview him and ask follow up questions that would have potentially revealed whether Trump was lying or not.

 

[colfax_m]

You are really out there in the wildest of conspirat theorie

What's wild about it? We have testimony under oath from Rick Gates and others about how Trump was coordinating with Stone during the campaign. Such coordination would be hardly surprising given their relationship.

Yet Trump claimed he couldn't remember anything about it.

The wildest of conspiracy theories supported solely by the Democratic Media.

Wiki - to the world - We are going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
Stone - to anyone that would listen - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.
BJ and everyone else paying attention - Wiki is going to be releasing some truths about Hillary that the Democratic Media has covered up.

The left -President Trump -did you hear this from Stone?
President Trump- I don't remember ( because literally everyone paying attention was talking about it.)

It's not the Democratic Media that's supporting this, it's testimony under oath and you've managed to conveniently leave out a lot of details.

What was very apparent is that the Trump campaign wanted to cover up the fact that they were trying to work with Wikileaks on the leaks. Stone's lying to investigators was just facet of this.

 

[berg80]

Left wing lunatic berg agrees with a Left wing lunatic blogger

I've give you a gold star if you can factually refute a single point made in the article. BTW, the "blog" is written by legal experts.

 

[berg80]

You're right. Technically they did depose him. But they weren't allowed to interview him and ask follow up questions that would have potentially revealed whether Trump was lying or not.

Two things to remember about that. 1. Trump refused to answer written questions having to do with obstruction. 2. Mueller characterized the written answers he (his lawyers) did give as "inadequate" because the Liar-in-Chief claimed not to recall the answers over 30 times. How convenient.
Stone could have provided some answers Trump "forgot." But we know that story. He got his sentence commuted for refusing to cooperate with Mueller.

"In at least 37 instances, Trump responded to Mueller’s questions — about his campaign’s contacts with Russians and about Russian interference in the 2016 election — by saying he couldn’t recall."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-have-no-recollection-trump-turned-to-familiar-refrain-in-response-to-mueller-questions/2019/04/19/7230817c-62bc-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html

 

[Billiejeens]

"So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks, the unredacted report shows. Yet in written answers the president provided to Mueller’s office in the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Trump insisted that he did not recall “the specifics of any call [he] had” with Stone during the campaign or any discussions with Stone of WikiLeaks. And shortly after he submitted those answers, the unredacted report states, Trump began tweeting publicly in support of Stone—calling him “brave” and congratulating his “guts” for refusing to testify."

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

This doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. Stone is the one who would be able to demonstrate that Trump lied in his written testimony to Mueller.

In other words, Mueller has no evidence that Trump lied, and he tried to extort Stone into lying about it.

Proving that Trump (or anyone else) lied wouldn't be easy. We already have testimony that Trump and the campaign was talking to Stone. Proving that Trump knew that he was lying in his testimony wouldn't be easy. Especially given that they were unable to depose Trump due to his refusal to do so.

That's false
They did depose him.

You're right. Technically they did depose him. But they weren't allowed to interview him and ask follow up questions that would have potentially revealed whether Trump was lying or not.

So there were no lies
Agreed