1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

The alleged hacking of the DNC was a legal fiction forced upon us by the deep state

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by resident_evil, Aug 15, 2019.

  1. resident_evil

    resident_evil Senator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2013
    Messages:
    42,754
    Likes Received:
    6,328
    Serious CYA by Democrats and their contractors. The big government that Democrats so very much love, love, love were never given the servers allegedly hacked so they could be forensically investigated. The Democrats once again steal the truth (a.k.a. lie).

    upload_2019-8-15_23-49-49.

    CrowdStrike, the controversial cybersecurity firm that the Democratic National Committee chose over the FBI in 2016 to examine its compromised computer servers, never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the government because the FBI never required it to, the Justice Department has admitted.

    The revelation came in a court filing by the government in the pre-trial phase of Roger Stone, a long-time Republican operative who had an unofficial role in the campaign of candidate Donald Trump. Stone has been charged with misleading Congress, obstructing justice and intimidating a witness.

    The filing was in response to a motion by Stone’s lawyers asking for “unredacted reports” from CrowdStrike in an effort to get the government to prove that Russia hacked the DNC server. “The government … does not possess the information the defandant seeks,” the filing says.

    In his motion, Stone’s lawyers said he had only been given three redacted drafts. In a startling footnote in the government’s response, the DOJ admits the drafts are all that exist. “Although the reports produced to the defendant are marked ‘draft,’ counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced,” the footnote says.

    In other words CrowdStrike, upon which the FBI relied to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC, never completed a final report and only turned over three redacted drafts to the government.
    ...

    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/...ed-russian-hacking-because-none-was-produced/
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  2. Raoul_Luke

    Raoul_Luke When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro...

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    7,963
    Likes Received:
    1,252
    Crickets! Like I have been saying all along, the "Russians" did not steal the DNC emails that ended up in Wikileaks' possession.

    US Courts apply far tougher standards to evidence than do the intelligence community and the pundits who loll around lazily, feeding from the intelligence PR trough. This (hardly surprising) reality was underscored when a Dallas financial adviser named Ed Butowsky sued National Public Radio and others for defaming him about the role he played in controversial stories relating to Rich. On August 7, NPR suffered a setback, when US District Court Judge Amos Mazzant affirmed a lower court decision to allow Butowsky’s defamation lawsuit to proceed.

    Judge Mazzant ruled that NPR had stated as “verifiable statements of fact” information that could not be verified, and that the plaintiff had been, in effect, accused of being engaged in wrongdoing without persuasive sourcing language.

    Imagine! – “persuasive sourcing” required to separate fact from opinion and axes to grind! An interesting precedent to apply to the ins and outs of Russiagate. In the courts, at least, this is now beginning to happen. And NPR and others in similarly vulnerable positions are scurrying around for allies. The day after Judge Mazzant’s decision, NPR enlisted help from discredited Yahoo! News pundit Michael Isikoff (author, with David Corn, of the fiction-posing-as-fact novel Russian Roulette). NPR gave Isikoff 37 minutes on its popular Fresh Air program to spin his yarn about how the Seth Rich story got started. You guessed it; the Russians started it. No, we are not making this up.

    It is far from clear that Isikoff can be much help to NPR in the libel case against it. Isikoff’s own writings on Russiagate are notably lacking in “verifiable statements of fact” – information that cannot be verified. Watch, for example, his recent interviewwith Consortium News Editor Joe Lauria on CN Live!

    Isikoff admitted to Lauria that he never saw the classified Russian intelligence document reportedly indicating that three days after Rich’s murder the Russian SVR foreign intelligence service planted a story about Rich having been the leaker and was killed for it. This Russian intelligence “bulletin,” as Isikoff called it, was supposedly placed on a bizarre website that Isikoff admitted was an unlikely place for Russia to spread disinformation. He acknowledged that he only took the word of the former prosecutor in the Rich case about the existence of this classified Russian document.

    In any case, The Washington Post, had already debunked Isikoff’s claim (which later in his article he switched to being only “purported”) by pointing out that Americans had already tweeted the theory of Rich’s murder days before the alleged Russian intervention.

    Persuasive Sourcing’ & Discovery??

    Butowsky’s libel lawsuit can now proceed to discovery, which will include demands for documents and depositions that are likely to shed light on whatever role Rich may have played in leaking to WikiLeaks. If the government obstructs or tries to slow-roll the case, we shall have to wait and see, for example, if the court will acquiesce to the familiar government objection that information regarding Rich’s murder must be withheld as a state secret? Hmmm. What would that tell us?


    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52092.htm
     
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
  3. resident_evil

    resident_evil Senator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2013
    Messages:
    42,754
    Likes Received:
    6,328
    The left is about theft. When they don't answer here it is because they got caught stealing, in this case the truth, and to keep up the lie they ignore answering the truth.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page