Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hey dumbfuck, what part of the “victim” did NOT consider Stone’s words a threat do you not understand? Never been proven Mule-er the Senile wanted Stone to lie? Mule-er is a corrupt asshole who should have been given life in prison years ago. Anything he claims about Trump or his associates can be taken as garbage.Anyone with half a brain sees that Roger was threatening Credico. The words speak for themselves.Another liar heard from. The person “threatened” stayed he did NOT see Stone’s word as a threat. So the CLAIM that he lied to Congress is worse than murder, rape, and drug dealing to a moron like you. And it has been proven multiple times that Mule-er the Senile wanted Stone to lie because he had ZERO on Trump. Go away. I don’t tolerate lying trolls like you.Stone lied to Congress then he threatened witnesses who would reveal his lie.Stone was subjected to predawn raid on his home because he told Mule-er to fuck off, he would NOT lie for him. Obozo commuted the sentences of and released rapists, murderers, drug dealers and other scum. Stone’s crime? Refusing to lie for the senile Mule-er. See the difference there? No, of course not. Stage 4 TDS.You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.Well, when you take everything out of context
"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”
Who said it was because he “refused to lie for Mueller”? Was it Stone?
I never said lying to Congress was worse than anything you mentioned and it’s never been proven that Mueller wanted Stone to lie.
Hey dumbfuck, what part of the “victim” did NOT consider Stone’s words a threat do you not understand? Never been proven Mule-er the Senile wanted Stone to lie? Mule-er is a corrupt asshole who should have been given life in prison years ago. Anything he claims about Trump or his associates can be taken as garbage.Anyone with half a brain sees that Roger was threatening Credico. The words speak for themselves.Another liar heard from. The person “threatened” stayed he did NOT see Stone’s word as a threat. So the CLAIM that he lied to Congress is worse than murder, rape, and drug dealing to a moron like you. And it has been proven multiple times that Mule-er the Senile wanted Stone to lie because he had ZERO on Trump. Go away. I don’t tolerate lying trolls like you.Stone lied to Congress then he threatened witnesses who would reveal his lie.Stone was subjected to predawn raid on his home because he told Mule-er to fuck off, he would NOT lie for him. Obozo commuted the sentences of and released rapists, murderers, drug dealers and other scum. Stone’s crime? Refusing to lie for the senile Mule-er. See the difference there? No, of course not. Stage 4 TDS.You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.Well, when you take everything out of context
"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”
Who said it was because he “refused to lie for Mueller”? Was it Stone?
I never said lying to Congress was worse than anything you mentioned and it’s never been proven that Mueller wanted Stone to lie.
The odds of that are about 1000 to 1.Well, they have the benefit of being true, so...You literally are the one thst just repeats democrat talking points
Have you ever posted an original thought?
"I'm going to kill your dog" sounds like a joke to me.Hey dumbfuck, what part of the “victim” did NOT consider Stone’s words a threat do you not understand? Never been proven Mule-er the Senile wanted Stone to lie? Mule-er is a corrupt asshole who should have been given life in prison years ago. Anything he claims about Trump or his associates can be taken as garbage.Anyone with half a brain sees that Roger was threatening Credico. The words speak for themselves.Another liar heard from. The person “threatened” stayed he did NOT see Stone’s word as a threat. So the CLAIM that he lied to Congress is worse than murder, rape, and drug dealing to a moron like you. And it has been proven multiple times that Mule-er the Senile wanted Stone to lie because he had ZERO on Trump. Go away. I don’t tolerate lying trolls like you.Stone lied to Congress then he threatened witnesses who would reveal his lie.Stone was subjected to predawn raid on his home because he told Mule-er to fuck off, he would NOT lie for him. Obozo commuted the sentences of and released rapists, murderers, drug dealers and other scum. Stone’s crime? Refusing to lie for the senile Mule-er. See the difference there? No, of course not. Stage 4 TDS.You're making a comparison between any commutation by Obama (or any prez) and Trump's commutation of Stone and then have the audacity to say I'm taking something out of context. Wow.Well, when you take everything out of context
"On August 2, Stone again called then-candidate Trump, and the two spoke for approximately ten minutes. Again, we don’t know what was said, but less than an hour after speaking with Trump, Stone emailed an associate of his Jerome Corsi, to have someone else who was living in London“ see Assange.” Less than two days later, on August 2, 2016, Corsi emailed Stone. Corsi told Stone that, “Word is friend in embassy [Assange] plans 2 more dumps. One “in October” and that “impact planned to be very damaging,” “time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about."
Around this time, Deputy Campaign Chairman Gates continued to have conversations with Stone about more information that would be coming out from WikiLeaks. Gates was also present for a phone call between Stone and Trump. While Gates couldn’t hear the content of the call, he could hear Stone’s voice on the phone and see his name on the caller ID. Thirty seconds after hanging up the phone with Stone, then-candidate Trump told Gates that there would be more information coming. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, also stated that he was present for a phone call between Trump and Stone, where Stone told Trump 4 that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and in a couple of days WikiLeaks would release information, and Trump responded, “oh good, alright.” Paul Manafort also stated that he spoke with Trump about Stone’s predictions and his claimed access to WikiLeaks, and that Trump instructed Manafort to stay in touch with Stone. In his written answers to the Special Counsel’s Office, President Trump denied remembering anything about his conversations with Stone during the summer of 2016, and he denied being aware that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks with anyone associated with the campaign. One week after submitting his written answers, President Trump criticized “flipping” witnesses and stated that Stone was “very brave” in indicating he would not cooperate with prosecutors. The Special Counsel’s Report stated that the President’s statements complimenting Stone “support the inference that the President intended to communicate a message that witnesses could be rewarded for refusing to provide testimony adverse to the President[.]”
Who said it was because he “refused to lie for Mueller”? Was it Stone?
I never said lying to Congress was worse than anything you mentioned and it’s never been proven that Mueller wanted Stone to lie.
It’s beyond absurd to look at Stone’s statements and believe he wasn’t trying to intimidate Credico.
Whether Credico felt intimidated or not isn’t even relevant.
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.
You're purposely distorting the truth.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.
"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:
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
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.
You're purposely distorting the truth.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.
"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.
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:
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
Yes I'm sure that was Mueller's thinking. Where did you churn that conspiracy theory from? Laughable.
None of it to do with election 2016 which is what Mueller was supposed to investigate and evidence gathered was from FISA warrants obtained based on false pretenses.Convicted on seven felony counts. Just like a typical friend of Trump. Manifort, Cohen, Gates, Flynn. Rouge's gallery beloved by morons!Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.
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
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.
You're purposely distorting the truth.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.
"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.
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:
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
Yes I'm sure that was Mueller's thinking. Where did you churn that conspiracy theory from? Laughable.
It’s in the court filings for the case. Not a conspiracy. A legal argument. And it should be obvious.
After what Stone did to this country, he deserves to have a big, black cellmate.Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.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...
An Oval Office blow job was a far piece from an Arkansas land deal. But there weren't so many ancillary convictions straight out of a corrupt campaign.None of it to do with election 2016 which is what Mueller was supposed to investigate and evidence gathered was from FISA warrants obtained based on false pretenses.Convicted on seven felony counts. Just like a typical friend of Trump. Manifort, Cohen, Gates, Flynn. Rouge's gallery beloved by morons!Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.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...
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.
You're purposely distorting the truth.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.
"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.
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:
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
Yes I'm sure that was Mueller's thinking. Where did you churn that conspiracy theory from? Laughable.
It’s in the court filings for the case. Not a conspiracy. A legal argument. And it should be obvious.
Legal argument based on FISA warrants obtained under false pretenses.
There’s nothing in this case based on a FISA warrant based under false pretenses.
www.businessinsider.com
There’s nothing in this case based on a FISA warrant based under false pretenses.
Mueller's appointment was based on FISA warrants obtained under false pretenses.
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.
You're purposely distorting the truth.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.
"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.
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:
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.
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.
You're purposely distorting the truth.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.
"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.
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:
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.
A front for who?
Really, Billo? I think Mr. Stone was destroyed because he knows President Trump and friends him.After what Stone did to this country, he deserves to have a big, black cellmate.Man was a casualty of Mueller witch hunt that never should have happened.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...
Why do you think he lied?Why was he arrested and was it justified?
He lied to Congress under oath. That's a no-no.
Threatening a witness, even jokingly, also a no-no.
Even in a BS political investigation.
There’s nothing in this case based on a FISA warrant based under false pretenses.
Mueller's appointment was based on FISA warrants obtained under false pretenses.
Can you prove this?
Edit to add: Even if this were true, who cares? The case against Concord Management has nothing to do with FISA warrants.
Why do you think he lied?Why was he arrested and was it justified?
He lied to Congress under oath. That's a no-no.
Threatening a witness, even jokingly, also a no-no.
Even in a BS political investigation.
