https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Garbage in garbage out

How in the world would the FBI ever prove in a courtroom any kind of hack ever took place if they never took POSSESSION OF THE DNC SERVER to get forensic evidence? This isn't going to go any better than the farce indictments of the Russian troll farm.

And think about this lefties, if TRUMP is a target of the Mueller investigation, HOW could Rosenstein brief him about these indictments days ago?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Indictment on 12 Russian Military Officers -

11 for hacking, spearphishing, etc. Interference...
1 for hacking

---

It would be hilarious if Putin gave Trump a thumb drive with those emails on it, since these indictments came down today.

They are basing this all on the claims of "Company 1" in the indictment, which is most likely Crowdstrike.

I may be confused by the different email hacks.

This seems to make it official that either the U.S. DOJ is wrong or half wrong about the hacking or Julian Assange is lieing or half lieing about his sources for the emails. Hasn't he said emphatically that Russians are not the source of emails?

I'm not coming at this from a pro-assange or anti-assange standpoint. Just trying to get clarity on what we know about the email sources up to this point.

A day after Representative Louie Gohmert brought up anomalies found by the IC Inspector General that were not Russian.

This is a indictment better have more substance a crowdstrike report.

But I think that's all the Mueller probe can do... they build indictments around public news reports and rumors.

hbtheduce said:

---

This is a indictment better have more substance a crowdstrike report.

But I think that's all the Mueller probe can do... they build indictments around public news reports and rumors.

---

Read the indictment and see for yourself. I'd caution against relying upon the likes of texags poster for info like this

Devil's advocate, if somehow one of these Russians show up in court, I don't think Crowdstrike's going to get very far in a court of law if they can't show any FORENSIC EVIDENCE of hacking. Just saying "Hey we're COMPUTER EXPERTS, just take our word for it!" isn't going to cut it against in competent defense lawyer. Likely not going to fly before any decent judge.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Indicting 12 Russian officers

---

Media play. They are long overdue indicting an entire Chinese army corps.

What if we're chasing our own tails?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4367746/WikiLeaks-says-CIA-disguised-hacking-Russian-activity.html

That would be embarassing - wait, this sounds like exactly what might happen during the Obama era!

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

They are basing this all on the claims of "Company 1" in the indictment, which is most likely Crowdstrike.

---

There is no indication in the indictment at all that this is true. They discuss Company 1 and actions they took, but nowhere do they say the allegations in the indictment at based on Company 1's claims

MASAXET said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

They are basing this all on the claims of "Company 1" in the indictment, which is most likely Crowdstrike.

---

There is no indication in the indictment at all that this is true. They discuss Company 1 and actions they took, but nowhere do they say the allegations in the indictment at based on Company 1's claims

---

So where did they get it without access to the servers and computers?

This attorney breaks it down

Well, having read all of that, a few observations:

• it does appear that this indictment is based largely on CrowdStrike's assessment, that is not to say that information stored in the cloud or other NSA information was also employed to corroborate it. Unclear at this point
• timing--acts alleged starting in March 2016 through November 2016. Papadopoulus was approached in March 2016 about "Hillary emails" so those referred to her server, NOT DNC/DCCC computer intrusions
• Was Assange duped? He's not an unindicted co-conspirator so likely yes, that was Mueller's assessment
• Democrats are dumb to repeatedly fall for spearfishing attempts

I will give Mueller some credit. He did investigate the only precipitating crime that was the basis for his appointment. Not exactly a "mission accomplished" moment as these allegations will likely never see the inside of a courtroom but kudos for the efforts.

One last thought. The Russians didn't think Trump had much of a chance to beat Hillary. And these efforts began during the primaries before he had clinched the nomination. So this effort was aimed at hurting her as the next POTUS with the exposure of true information. It was not about a disinformation campaign other than hiding the perpetrators.

It wasn't even about Trump at all. Funny how it boomeranged back on him anyway. (Well, not funny, more unexpected benefit to the scheme.)

MASAXET said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

They are basing this all on the claims of "Company 1" in the indictment, which is most likely Crowdstrike.

---

There is no indication in the indictment at all that this is true. They discuss Company 1 and actions they took, but nowhere do they say the allegations in the indictment at based on Company 1's claims

---

Did the FBI get all these logs and network activity from their own examination, or from the report from crowd-strike...

Did they track the activity through a chain of IPs and VPNs that terminated in Russia? Or are they relying on the intelligence that the Europeans (Dutch?) supposedly overheard?

The chain of evidence to me leads to a VPN in signapore, some searches on a russian server that match a press release, and drop off servers in Arizona and Illinois. Did those servers get searched/analyzed?


It could very well be Russians, but is any of this information new investigative work by the FBI, or are we getting the regurgitation of the information we already knew (which was unconvincing) with some Russian names at the top of the page.

Yeah I downloaded all that yesterday, it's heavily redacted and I'm still going over it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Did anybody else think it odd that the DNC had a file labeled "Benghazi Investigations"?? Part of a rapid response if it kept coming up perhaps?

---

You are likely dead on point with that Dixie. DNC has always been ahead of the game with Rapid Response, pretty much experts on covering their asses since they've had to do it so much. Bill Clinton's tenure was the bootcamp for that and they've been ahead of the game ever since.

Not to mention why Mueller saw fit to include that specific nugget of info.

aggiehawg said:

---

• Was Assange duped? He's not an unindicted co-conspirator so likely yes, that was Mueller's assessment

---

Neither the Russians or Assange are stupid. I assumed at the time that if the Russians were indeed the source of the info that Assange published they would have used some sort of cut-out to hide the original source.

Because of this I believe that Assange actually thought the source was not Russia, but some lone hacker, etc.

IDAGG said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

• Was Assange duped? He's not an unindicted co-conspirator so likely yes, that was Mueller's assessment

---

Neither the Russians or Assange are stupid. I assumed at the time that if the Russians were indeed the source of the info that Assange published they would have used some sort of cut-out to hide the original source.

Because of this I believe that Assange actually thought the source was not Russia, but some lone hacker, etc.

---

DCLeaks and Gucifer 2.0 have nothing to do with Assange or WikiLeaks. To my recollection, they did not appear until after WikiLeaks put out the initial Clinton emails. While the documents and emails that WikiLeaks placed out there could be verified to be unaltered from their source, the same could not be said of DCLeaks. Eventually it became clear that nothing reliable or even interesting was coming from Gucifer 2.0 & DCLeaks and actually, most of their stuff felt more like an attempt to put stuff out there that could be refuted to pull attention away from the WikiLeaks drops.

ScottH_01 said:

---

IDAGG said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

• Was Assange duped? He's not an unindicted co-conspirator so likely yes, that was Mueller's assessment

---

Neither the Russians or Assange are stupid. I assumed at the time that if the Russians were indeed the source of the info that Assange published they would have used some sort of cut-out to hide the original source.

Because of this I believe that Assange actually thought the source was not Russia, but some lone hacker, etc.

---

DCLeaks and Gucifer 2.0 have nothing to do with Assange or WikiLeaks. To my recollection, they did not appear until after WikiLeaks put out the initial Clinton emails. While the documents and emails that WikiLeaks placed out there could be verified to be unaltered from their source, the same could not be said of DCLeaks. Eventually it became clear that nothing reliable or even interesting was coming from Gucifer 2.0 & DCLeaks and actually, most of their stuff felt more like an attempt to put stuff out there that could be refuted to pull attention away from the WikiLeaks drops.

---

Well, that's not what the indictment says. They connect the same operation that set up Guccifer and DCLeaks to WikiLeaks.

Again, Assange is not designated as an unindicted co-conspirator so in Mueller's assessment he was duped same as the American citizens who didn't know precisely with whom they were dealing.

There are a lot of things to impeach Lisa Page's character.

None is greater than that she chose to bump uglies with Strzok.

aggiehawg said:

---

ScottH_01 said:

---

IDAGG said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

• Was Assange duped? He's not an unindicted co-conspirator so likely yes, that was Mueller's assessment

---

Neither the Russians or Assange are stupid. I assumed at the time that if the Russians were indeed the source of the info that Assange published they would have used some sort of cut-out to hide the original source.

Because of this I believe that Assange actually thought the source was not Russia, but some lone hacker, etc.

---

DCLeaks and Gucifer 2.0 have nothing to do with Assange or WikiLeaks. To my recollection, they did not appear until after WikiLeaks put out the initial Clinton emails. While the documents and emails that WikiLeaks placed out there could be verified to be unaltered from their source, the same could not be said of DCLeaks. Eventually it became clear that nothing reliable or even interesting was coming from Gucifer 2.0 & DCLeaks and actually, most of their stuff felt more like an attempt to put stuff out there that could be refuted to pull attention away from the WikiLeaks drops.

---

Well, that's not what the indictment says. They connect the same operation that set up Guccifer and DCLeaks to WikiLeaks.

Again, Assange is not designated as an unindicted co-conspirator so in Mueller's assessment he was duped same as the American citizens who didn't know precisely with whom they were dealing.

---

Mueller can say whatever he wants, everything that showed up on WikiLeaks was new content, everything that showed up on DCLeaks was skeezy and the majority of it was recycled and disreputable.

I can believe DCLeaks being either a Russian or DNC cover operation.

Fair enough. I have no way of knowing either version is the "correct one."