Commutation of Stone Sentence Correct Move

[bripat9643]

"It was an answer — or non-answer — that Trump had used repeatedly before.

He offered similarly hazy responses when he faced questions in a civil suit about Trump University, when he was pressed about his net worth in a deposition in another case, when reporters asked about his support for the Iraq War, and when he was quizzed about a key Oval Office encounter with then-FBI Director James B. Comey.
In the case of the special counsel investigation, prosecutors found Trump’s repeated assertions of a faulty memory “inadequate,” according to Mueller’s newly released report.
Prosecutors pushed for an in-person interview.
“This is the President’s opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered,” they wrote, according to the report.

Trump declined."

We all know Mueller was trying to set a perjury trap. It doesn't matter what he thought of Trump's answers. If he isn't charging Trump with perjury, that's the end of his case.

 

[berg80]

How many times did Hillary say she couldn't recall during the Benghazi investigation?

Why don't you run along and find out.

I'm going to ask you to answer a question honestly............realizing that's expecting a lot.

Do you find it credible that Trump does not recall talking to Stone about Wikileaks? Not exactly what was said, just having a conversation about Wikileaks on the general subject of them doing document dumps.

 

[berg80]

The DOJ report says Mueller knew there was no collusion two days after he began the investigation. Everything he did after that point was an abuse of power.

Please provide proof.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Essential reading on the Mueller Report: an annotation plus key findings, drawing on investigative reports and Special Counsel court filings.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Trump commutes Roger Stone's sentence, days before prison term set to begin

The White House announced Friday that President Trump signed an Executive Grant of Clemency commuting the "unjust sentence" of Roger Stone, just days before the longtime political operative is slated to report to prison to serve more than three years for charges stemming from former Special...

www.foxnews.com

Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.

Goes without saying at this point. PROGS prove daily if they say stop they're going, and everyday is opposite day.

 

[bripat9643]

How many times did Hillary say she couldn't recall during the Benghazi investigation?

Why don't you run along and find out.

I'm going to ask you to answer a question honestly............realizing that's expecting a lot.

Do you find it credible that Trump does not recall talking to Stone about Wikileaks? Not exactly what was said, just having a conversation about Wikileaks on the general subject of them doing document dumps.

It doesn't matter whether you believe its "credible." It's not perjury, so that's the end of Mueller's perjury trap.

I'm going to ask you to answer a question honestly............realizing that's expecting a lot.

You weren't concerned when Hillary said she couldn't remember, so why should anyone give a damn when Trump does it?

 

[bripat9643]

The DOJ report says Mueller knew there was no collusion two days after he began the investigation. Everything he did after that point was an abuse of power.

Please provide proof.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Essential reading on the Mueller Report: an annotation plus key findings, drawing on investigative reports and Special Counsel court filings.

www.justsecurity.org

Read the DOJ report, numskull.

 

[colfax_m]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

 

[Billiejeens]

So Trump clearly knew about and encouraged Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks

I can't help noticing you left out the part of the statement that makes it clear Trump lied to Mueller.

Was Stone's outreach illegal? Even a tiny bit?

Nope

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

My goodness
Just gibberish

 

[colfax_m]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

My goodness
Just gibberish

Sorry, I don’t mean to exclude you but I post in English, not troll. I guess the language barrier isn’t able to be bridged.

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

My goodness
Just gibberish

Sorry, I don’t mean to exclude you but I post in English, not troll. I guess the language barrier isn’t able to be bridged.

Yes, but everything that you write is either a falsehood or simply wrong.

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

Describe the role of Concord Management in the proceedings

 

[colfax_m]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

My goodness
Just gibberish

Sorry, I don’t mean to exclude you but I post in English, not troll. I guess the language barrier isn’t able to be bridged.

Yes, but everything that you write is either a falsehood or simply wrong.

Ha! If you say so. Feel free to prove me wrong. Yiu never do, but maybe you’ll turn over a new leaf and stop trolling.

 

[bripat9643]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

The case was not presented because Mueller had no case, and he never did have a case. The prosecution of the 12 Russions was pure eyewash. It was window dressing to make Mueller's investigation look legitimate when we all know it was a farce.

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

My goodness
Just gibberish

Sorry, I don’t mean to exclude you but I post in English, not troll. I guess the language barrier isn’t able to be bridged.

Yes, but everything that you write is either a falsehood or simply wrong.

Ha! If you say so. Feel free to prove me wrong. Yiu never do, but maybe you’ll turn over a new leaf and stop trolling.

You literally are the one thst just repeats democrat talking points
Have you ever posted an original thought?

 

[Billiejeens]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

My goodness
Just gibberish

Sorry, I don’t mean to exclude you but I post in English, not troll. I guess the language barrier isn’t able to be bridged.

Yes, but everything that you write is either a falsehood or simply wrong.

Ha! If you say so. Feel free to prove me wrong. Yiu never do, but maybe you’ll turn over a new leaf and stop trolling.

Go get your talking points refreshed
Think Russian reboot
Ask your handlers about that

 

[colfax_m]

In an effort to uphold transparency in the Stone case, Fitton suggests that AG Barr “should’ve frozen everything related to Mueller.” Going forward, Fitton advocates that “the 4 lawyers who tried to punish Stone inappropriately be subject to prosecution.” While credit must be given to AG Barr “for coming in [to the prosecution] and stopping the corruption,” he must continue to “focus on the corruption in his own agency and pay attention to the president’s concerns.” After all, as the Stone case has shown, the Justice Department is in a state of disarray, a place where “Barr can’t ensure that justice is done without his personal intervention.”

Does Fitton explain why Stone's prosecution was inappropriate? Because the facts of the matter are pretty much indisputable. There's so much documentation demonstrating Stone lied and then tried to cover it up, that few people actually try to argue his innocence.

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.

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.

Yeah, that was the basis for indicting those 12 Russians who will never appear in a U.S. court. When their lawyer showed up for the trial, Mueller had no case to present, so we know that whole thing is bogus. Mueller has no evidence for any of the accusations he makes. None.

The lawyer that appeared before court was representing Concord Management, not “the 12 Russians”. The case was not presented because Mueller was not interested in a dog and pony show since the defendant never presented before the court and remained outside our jurisdiction.

So you’re clearly misinformed

Describe the role of Concord Management in the proceedings

Concord Management was a front company and bankrolled some of the IRC activities.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/download

 

[Nosmo King]

Trump commutes Roger Stone's sentence, days before prison term set to begin

The White House announced Friday that President Trump signed an Executive Grant of Clemency commuting the "unjust sentence" of Roger Stone, just days before the longtime political operative is slated to report to prison to serve more than three years for charges stemming from former Special...

www.foxnews.com

Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.

Convicted on seven felony counts. Just like a typical friend of Trump. Manifort, Cohen, Gates, Flynn. Rouge's gallery beloved by morons!

 

[colfax_m]

You literally are the one thst just repeats democrat talking points
Have you ever posted an original thought?

Well, they have the benefit of being true, so...

 

[basquebromance]

history is like an iceberg. A legal case is like that too, you see part of it but there’s a whole lot underneath. Roger Stone is a part of the stuff that is very much underneath