AG 2000' said:

---

Holy crap. How are USB ports enabled on any computer with access to info like that?

---

Excellent question ... or if so, why aren't alarm bells sounded every time data is downloaded to an external devise?

Incompetence

garc said:

---

Incompetence

---

The whole damn govt.

10/24/18 Rosenstein will testify before the joint committees.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

10/24/18 Rosenstein will testify before the joint committees.

---

I heard it's only going to be a really small audience (four Congressmen, Rosy, and someone to transcribe it). Then after its been vetted by the IC, it would at some point be released... Sucks if true that its going to continue to drag.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

10/24/18 Rosenstein will testify before the joint committees.

---

10/24, you say? Like 1/1024?

GCP12 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

10/24/18 Rosenstein will testify before the joint committees.

---

10/24, you say? Like 1/1024?

---

And Papadopoulos is testifying on the 25th. Coincidence?

benchmark said:

---

AG 2000' said:

---

Holy crap. How are USB ports enabled on any computer with access to info like that?

---

Excellent question ... or if so, why aren't alarm bells sounded every time data is downloaded to an external devise?

---

Normally, before a thumb drive can download data from a government computer, the drive is encripted so it can only be opened on another government computer.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

10/24/18 Rosenstein will testify before the joint committees.

---

Is this under oath?

valvemonkey91 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

10/24/18 Rosenstein will testify before the joint committees.

---

Is this under oath?

---

and transcribed I thought I read

valvemonkey91 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

10/24/18 Rosenstein will testify before the joint committees.

---

Is this under oath?

---

Yes but that doesnt matter

Lying to congress is a felony. That was the whole joke about Zuckerberg refusing to testify to congress under oath..... His lawyers must really be idiots, under oath or not it still is a felony, same level.

Hmm well WaPo has reported that Natalie Edwards' co-conspirator at FinCEN is Kip Brailey. So all the speculation on Thomas Ott was possibly a miss. Now of course WaPo is reporting this as "a person familiar with the case", so take it with a grain of salt. WaPo has been wrong a truck load of times. Many people hoped that Edwards' co-conspirator was Thomas Ott because it advanced a broader narrative that Ott had worked with Bruce Ohr. If WaPo is right then that theory is blown up, but time will tell.

Now Kip Brailey did formerly serve as Intelligence Community Chief Learning Officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That means that Kip Brailey worked for James Clapper when Clapper was Director of National Intelligence. So this is getting better and better, a co-conspirator leaker working for a serial leaker, and the main leaker on the Steele dossier. This just keeps getting better and better. The Ott/Ohr tie was minimal, but Brailey working for Clapper as a ICCLO is nice. Natalie Edwards was also at the ODNI during the same time under Clapper with Brailey.

The Ott/Ohr connection may still be in play if WaPo os wrong on this and they very well may be.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-treasury-employee-charged-with-leaking-documents-related-to-russia-probe/2018/10/17/74f67faa-d226-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html?utm_term=.d7ee0e56410a

Secolobo said:

---

benchmark said:

---

AG 2000' said:

---

Holy crap. How are USB ports enabled on any computer with access to info like that?

---

Excellent question ... or if so, why aren't alarm bells sounded every time data is downloaded to an external devise?

---

Normally, before a thumb drive can download data from a government computer, the drive is encripted so it can only be opened on another government computer.

---

Agency policies across the federal government vary widely on the endpoint encryption policies for removable media. In some organizations the loss of access to data on removable media resulting from forgotten passwords (where the individual who saves data to removable media manually assigns a password) has caused them to reverse earlier policies that automatically encrypted data stored to removable media. They have accepted a measure of risk from the insider threat as a compromise to increase efficiency and ease of use within the organization. For computers systems and storage that only handle confidential or FOUO data that may be an acceptable compromise but that assumes that members of the workforce do not have ulterior motives to exploit the portability of data on removable media.

In this case the insider threat was a politically partisan employee who used access to data to exfiltrate it for political purposes. Clearly Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards did have malicious intent and it would have been better if she had been prevented from exfiltrating data outside the network enclave using removable media or other means. Implementing a "zero trust" policy for systems and network connections is far easier than imposing a zero trust policy on employees that treats them all as suspects and uses security controls that make it more difficult to work with the data. Zero trust environments for employees are hard on morale and most organizations are reluctant to impose intrusive surveillance and security controls that presume the screened and cleared workforce may have malicious intent.

It boils down to the question of whether the government workforce can be considered trustworthy and nonpartisan to the extent that they will not violate data security policy for political reasons. Natalie Edwards and Reality Winner are two recent examples that suggest that the federal government has a lot of partisan termites in the woodwork.

Theadreader site is down. Interesting short thread on Mueller tactics with Concord Management.


(I am visiting out of state with grandchildren & am on a weird ancient computer.)

Ulysses90 said:

---

It boils down to the question of whether the government workforce can be considered trustworthy and nonpartisan to the extent that they will not violate data security policy for political reasons. Natalie Edwards and Reality Winner are two recent examples that suggest that the federal government has a lot of partisan termites in the woodwork.

---

Other than DoD, white-collar federal employees in DC are almost exclusively Democrats. Untrustworthy partisan termites are a near certainty in virtually every federal agency.

Are you using Dial-Up??

fasthorses05 said:

---

Are you using Dial-Up??

---

Probably got one of those CD-ROMs with 10 free hours of AOL.

What a load of hooey. Mueller filed a criminal indictment, not a civil action. The burden of proof on each element of the crimes alleged is on the prosecution. If it is not a crime to fail to register (and under FARA such a failure is usually handled administratively with a small fine) then there can be no conspiracy to defraud by failing to register. No underlying crime, no conspiracy is possible.

Just one more reason to believe Team Mueller pulled crap out of thin air on this indictment.

But I do see where Techno-Fog is going with how such convoluted reasoning could be used against Trump and it involves his use of Executive Privilege. (A legal argument that is similarly full of hooey but we have a few liberal lawyers on this board who would embrace such specious arguments.)

fasthorses05 said:

---

Are you using Dial-Up??

---

It's my grandson's computer. He's autistic, so there are all sorts of restrictions/locks on content, it's as slow as molasses, & it's almost impossible to copy & paste. Took me about 10 minutes to post that previous thread from Twitter.

You need to take your laptop with you!

drcrinum said:

---

---

Popcorn? It's closed right?

aggiehawg said:

---

What a load of hooey. Mueller filed a criminal indictment, not a civil action. The burden of proof on each element of the crimes alleged is on the prosecution. If it is not a crime to fail to register (and under FARA such a failure is usually handled administratively with a small fine) then there can be no conspiracy to defraud by failing to register. No underlying crime, no conspiracy is possible.

Just one more reason to believe Team Mueller pulled crap out of thin air on this indictment.

But I do see where Techno-Fog is going with how such convoluted reasoning could be used against Trump and it involves his use of Executive Privilege. (A legal argument that is similarly full of hooey but we have a few liberal lawyers on this board who would embrace such specious arguments.)

---

This is from the first set of indictments, right? This is the company that showed up in court to respond to the charges and our brilliant government attorneys tried to delay because this defendant hadn't been properly served yet?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Popcorn? It's closed right?

---

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/politics/nellie-ohr-fusion-gps-congress-gps/index.html

Closed door. James Baker testified yesterday for a second time.

Quote:

---

For starters, Mueller isn't operating under the same ground rules as past high-profile government probes, including the Reagan-era investigation into Iranian arms sale and whether President Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about his extramarital affair with a White House intern. Those examinations worked under the guidelines of a post-Watergate law that expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses, a mandate that led to Starr's salacious report that upended Clinton's second term.

Mueller's reporting mandate is much different. He must notify his Justice Department supervisor currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on his budgeting needs and all "significant events" made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas.

When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as "there wasn't enough evidence" to support a winning court case.

---

That will be an interesting section to read if it is ever released. All of the people constantly touting, "but he has indicted 19 people and entities!" are missing the point. The vast majority of those are against Russians and Russian entities and will never see the inside of a courtroom. Hard to win a criminal court case if the court has no jurisdiction over the people to begin with, so why bring it in the first place??

And now, it appears likely that the Conchord Management case will be tossed, at least in part. A case he never expected to try in a court until Putin's bestie decided to fight back. What was the underlying justification for bringing that case?

The final tally on the success of the Mueller investigation will be a big fat zero as far as Russian interference with the 2016 election is concerned. He has one conviction, one, on Manafort for stuff having nothing to do with the 2016 election. The rest are questionable guilty pleas and mostly on informations created by Mueller, not grand jury indictments. Critical difference there. If Mueller wasn't even certain he would obtain an indictment with our flawed grand jury process and opted instead to go with a direct charge, what does that say about the quantity, quality and admissibility of evidence he had obtained? (IMO, it is the admissibility issue that bedeviled Mueller the most.)

drcrinum said:

---

---

Maybe 923.18 USC 371?

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions.

Correct. From the moment Conchord's lawyers entered a general appearance (waiving any service of process issues) Team Mueller has been tap-dancing trying to delay discovery and making fools of themselves in the process.

Different case than the GRU agents, a/k/a Russian Bot case. The case that Putin and Trump discussed briefly at Helsinki when Putin made an offer to make his GRU agents available if Trump would hand over Browder, the Magnitsky Act guy.

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

Maybe 923.18 USC 371?

The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions.

---

Only they made no statement to a federal agency. Not the applicable statute, unless they are saying staying silent while under no duty to speak is itself a "statement" which is what they are twisting themselves into pretzels to do.

That's why they made the ideal intermediaries. Spousal privilege.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Imagine this reasoning applied to the IRS.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Imagine this reasoning applied to the IRS.

---

Mueller and everyone on his team that supported this filing should have their law licenses suspended.