sam callahan said:
There are a lot of things to impeach Lisa Page's character.
None is greater than that she chose to bump uglies with Strzok.
Completely fair, I followed the leaks stuff pretty closely that summer both here and on the DNCLeaks reddit. Gucifer 2.0's stuff always seemed off and untrustworthy to me, and I think that became the prevalent feeling of the majority of that were following the stuff as closely or closer than I.aggiehawg said:
Fair enough. I have no way of knowing either version is the "correct one."
Hasn't Assange stated the DNC emails were handed over by a disgruntled DNC staffer?ScottH_01 said:Completely fair, I followed the leaks stuff pretty closely that summer both here and on the DNCLeaks reddit. Gucifer 2.0's stuff always seemed off and untrustworthy to me, and I think that became the prevalent feeling of the majority of that were following the stuff as closely or closer than I.aggiehawg said:
Fair enough. I have no way of knowing either version is the "correct one."
The team that indicted a "Ham Sandwhich" feels more reputable than Gucifer and DCLeaks.
Not directly, no. He did post a reward for information about Seth Rich's murder, though.VegasAg86 said:Hasn't Assange stated the DNC emails were handed over by a disgruntled DNC staffer?ScottH_01 said:Completely fair, I followed the leaks stuff pretty closely that summer both here and on the DNCLeaks reddit. Gucifer 2.0's stuff always seemed off and untrustworthy to me, and I think that became the prevalent feeling of the majority of that were following the stuff as closely or closer than I.aggiehawg said:
Fair enough. I have no way of knowing either version is the "correct one."
The team that indicted a "Ham Sandwhich" feels more reputable than Gucifer and DCLeaks.
He's stated that the DNC emails were leaked not hacked. He has only hinted obliquely at the source.VegasAg86 said:Hasn't Assange stated the DNC emails were handed over by a disgruntled DNC staffer?ScottH_01 said:Completely fair, I followed the leaks stuff pretty closely that summer both here and on the DNCLeaks reddit. Gucifer 2.0's stuff always seemed off and untrustworthy to me, and I think that became the prevalent feeling of the majority of that were following the stuff as closely or closer than I.aggiehawg said:
Fair enough. I have no way of knowing either version is the "correct one."
The team that indicted a "Ham Sandwhich" feels more reputable than Gucifer and DCLeaks.
hasn't your initial reaction to every Mueller lawsuit been that it would thrown out?Quote:
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.
LINKQuote:
The DNC was first breached in the summer of 2015, according to CrowdStrike, the cyber firm brought in after the digital break-in.
The culprit, the firm said, was "Cozy Bear," a Russian intelligence-linked hacker group that had previously infiltrated the White House and State Department. The FBI first reached out to the DNC in September to alert staffers that they were under digital siege. But the tech-support contractor that picked up the phone thought it might be a prank and the committee didn't follow through. That allowed the Russians free rein to explore DNC servers, collecting login credentials and lifting private emails and documents.
The following April, another group, the Russian military-aligned "Fancy Bear," joined its counterpart, apparently without any coordination between the two. Fancy Bear started collecting much of the same information, according to researchers.
Weeks later, the DNC caught on to the digital rummaging and it quickly dawned on officials that they might have a catastrophe on their hands. In June, the DNC went public, blaming Russia for the digital espionage.
Quote:
The DOJ Has Turned The Russia Investigation Into A Puzzle Never To Be Solved
.....
To paraphrase Mitch McDeere in the movie "The Firm," the Russia investigation is like a ship carrying a cargo that will never reach any port. For McDeere, keeping secrets kept him safe. Countless times Rosenstein responded to Congress, "I'm sorry I can't answer that question because of the ongoing nature of the investigation."
So long as the USS Mueller remains at sea, we may never know how far Perkins Coie's tentacles reach into the government and the media. And we won't find out what's really going on with the DOJ's FISA applications. After all this time, has the USS Mueller moved any closer to answering the question, "What is it that Donald Trump supposedly did to collude with the Russians?" Even Trump opponents have cause to be upset, as the investigation into Trump appears stalled indefinitely.
So long as Captain Rosenstein keeps his vessel at sea, basic questions of public integrity will remain unanswered.
Quote:
The DOJ Has Turned The Russia Investigation Into A Puzzle Never To Be Solved
To be fair, Mueller does not expect any of the named defendants to appear voluntarily nor be extradited. Of course the last time he thought that he got a surprise.BMX Bandit said:
Haven't read it yet, but this whole indictment really comes across as "we really need to indict someone for hacking something" to me.
But this really struck me as funny:hasn't your initial reaction to every Mueller lawsuit been that it would thrown out?Quote:
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.
my guess is this one goes about the same as those others.
Quote:
To be fair, Mueller does not expect any of the named defendants to appear voluntarily nor be extradited
LOL. What? You know how jurisdiction works. He didn't indict some Russian oligarchs here, he indicted members of the GRU. Think Putin will just hand them over to the US? I don't.BMX Bandit said:Quote:
To be fair, Mueller does not expect any of the named defendants to appear voluntarily nor be extradited
Link?
I keep hearing that about the other case. What's the basis? Speculation?
Maybe Trump can put this thought into Putin's head at their meeting.Quote:
We'll see if someone fights this and demands the opportunity to do their own forensic examination. My guess is that depends on Putin's whim. If he wants to make Mueller look bad, he'll convince someone to be the sacrificial lamb, or else.
I am confident that thought has already been weighed in Putin's mind. Which decision he reaches won't have anything to do with Trump. Doubt he's in the mood to do Trump a solid.Prognightmare said:Maybe Trump can put this thought into Putin's head at their meeting.Quote:
We'll see if someone fights this and demands the opportunity to do their own forensic examination. My guess is that depends on Putin's whim. If he wants to make Mueller look bad, he'll convince someone to be the sacrificial lamb, or else.
Is Snowden still in Moscow?coyote68 said:
Hmmm.
Putin will respond. What would serve his interests best?
Just a guess. He embarrassed Mueller in the previous indictments and we can expect round 2 with these indictments. Crowdstrike is a clintonista organization. Mueller will probably be forced to allow the Russian defense team to examinine the DNC server.
Easy money is those servers don't exist anymorecoyote68 said:
Hmmm.
Putin will respond. What would serve his interests best?
Just a guess. He embarrassed Mueller in the previous indictments and we can expect round 2 with these indictments. Crowdstrike is a clintonista organization. Mueller will probably be forced to allow the Russian defense team to examinine the DNC server.
Quote:
On January 3rd, 2018, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein entered an agreement for witness testimony. One of those witnesses was FBI Attorney Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe's former special counsel.
WASHINGTON January 4th House investigators will get access this week to "all remaining investigative documents" in unredacted form that they had sought as part of their Russia inquiry, under a deal between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
[] According to the letter, committee investigators also will get access to eight key witnesses this month including FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel's Russia probe.
The conversation was documented in a confirmation letter shared by Devin Nunes back to Rod Rosenstein the following day, January 4th, 2018. Except there's a problem, Lisa Page told congress today that no-one from the DOJ ever contacted her. That means Rod Rosenstein was lying:
Now I'm confused. Granted been out of practice for awhile but is Congress totally dependent on DOJ to deliver subpoenas? How about using the Capitol Police? Even private process servers?drcrinum said:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/13/lisa-page-testimony-highlights-deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-lied-to-chairman-devin-nunes/Quote:
On January 3rd, 2018, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein entered an agreement for witness testimony. One of those witnesses was FBI Attorney Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe's former special counsel.
WASHINGTON January 4th House investigators will get access this week to "all remaining investigative documents" in unredacted form that they had sought as part of their Russia inquiry, under a deal between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., according to a letter obtained by Fox News.
[] According to the letter, committee investigators also will get access to eight key witnesses this month including FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel's Russia probe.
The conversation was documented in a confirmation letter shared by Devin Nunes back to Rod Rosenstein the following day, January 4th, 2018. Except there's a problem, Lisa Page told congress today that no-one from the DOJ ever contacted her. That means Rod Rosenstein was lying:
That's a good question. But it perhaps will be justified because she is covered by the NDA she signed upon separation from the bureau.pedro_martinez said:And why would FBI counsel be present for a private citizen?drcrinum said:
