It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mueller Indicts 12 For Russian Hacking

page: 28
78
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Yes there is...

18 USC 793(F)

Strzok changed Comeys wording to remove gross negligence.
Comey added the nonexistent element of intent to the section.

In addition to perjury for lying to Congress.
Destruction of government records
Conspiracy
etc etc etc.


That's because "gross negligence" has a specific legal definition:


Gross Negligence
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.


legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Can you prove "conscious and voluntary disregard?" Was there "grave injury or harm to persons?"

ETA: Oh, and 18 U.S. Code 793 does not apply here.
edit on 15-7-2018 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Phage

But do you really think that Trump knew (or knows) the difference?


Well, Hillary & crew lost so much to so many entities it does get a little confusing so he probably doesn't while trying to run the country and fix all the globalist messages.

What he does know is that he's not guilty of collusion and ALL of it ties together: Hillary getting let off the hook by corrupt players in Mid Year and the same bad guys manufacturing a witch hunt in Crossfire Hurricane.


Just for the sake of fact (not that I care about Hillary) I don't think it's been proven that Hillary's email server was hacked.

The DNC server(s) were hacked.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

She was the first lady of Arkansas.
She was the fiurst lady of the US.
She was a US Senator.
As Senator she sat on Armed Services Committee
She was Secretary of State
She signed off on security documents explaining the do's and dont's.

She knows what is required when handling classified information. She knowingly used a private server, illegally. She then transferred classified material from secure government systems to an unsecured private server.

Her actions meet gross negligence.

The fact she lied about the server to start with and then destroyed electronic devices demonstrates consciousness of guilt, which meets the non existent "intent" standard that doesnt exist.

Here is the federal standard for 18 USC -

Gross Negligence

A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.


Finally one of the emails she had on her server contained classified info by way of the name of a spy we had in Iran who was providing us with intelligence on their nuke program. Because it was on her server and because her server was compromised the source was identified to Iran and he was executed.
edit on 15-7-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

She was the first lady of Arkansas.
She was the fiurst lady of the US.
She was a US Senator.
As Senator she sat on Armed Services Committee
She was Secretary of State
She signed off on security documents explaining the do's and dont's.

She knows what is required when handling classified information. She knowingly used a private server, illegally. She then transferred classified material from secure government systems to an unsecured private server.

Her actions meet gross negligence.

The fact she lied about the server to start with and then destroyed electronic devices demonstrates consciousness of guilt, which meets the non existent "intent" standard that doesnt exist.

Colin Powell did the same thing, at least with an email server... don't know for sure about classified information.

I won't disagree that this is mishandling information , but I wonder at the state of IT at the State Department.

Still waiting for Trump to lock her up.
edit on 8Sun, 15 Jul 2018 08:01:43 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

No Powell and the others used private email and if I recall correctly they never sent classified info thru it.. At no point did they have a personal server in their basement like Clinton did.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpartanStoic
a reply to: DanteGaland

Have you read the FireEye assessment?

Apparently not. Her server did not have the bandwidth to move that amount of data that fast. Even on the local loop.

I'm not behind at all, maybe you should do some reading.



Hillary Clinton's server is not mentioned in this indictment.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think even President Trump is using his personal cell phone to the dismay of his advisors...

Well, politicians not being good at protecting information is not surprising.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xcathdra


No - Crowdstrike did the "analysis" of the server however no law enforcement agency performed an analysis


You have no idea if who did what with what beyond CrowdStrike. You know that the FBI wasn't given direct access to the servers at the time the hack was discovered. That's it.


The "hack" is based entirely on crowdstrikes result and as someone else pointed out crowdstrike already had to retract its findings.



How many times are you going to repeat this easily debunked claim?


"CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence."
source www.voanews.com...

"Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system."
"troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. That report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC and the dissemination of e-mails from key staffers via WikiLeaks, in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. This official intelligence assessment has since led to what some call “Russiagate,” with charges and investigations of alleged collusion with the Kremlin, and, in turn, to what is now a major American domestic political crisis and an increasingly perilous state of US-Russia relations. To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom. Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”


"“What is missing from the public report is…hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack…. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”


"Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths."

"Qualified experts working independently of one another began to examine the DNC case immediately after the July 2016 events. Prominent among these is a group comprising former intelligence officers, almost all of whom previously occupied senior positions. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), founded in 2003, now has 30 members, including a few associates with backgrounds in national-security fields other than intelligence. The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. Most of these men have decades of experience in matters concerning Russian intelligence and the related technologies. This article reflects numerous interviews with all of them conducted in person, via Skype, or by telephone.

The customary VIPS format is an open letter, typically addressed to the president. The group has written three such letters on the DNC incident, all of which were first published by Robert Parry at www.consortiumnews.com. Here is the latest, dated July 24; it blueprints the forensic work this article explores in detail. They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation. In a letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left office, the group explained that the NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks,” the letter said. “If NSA cannot produce such evidence—and quickly—this would probably mean it does not have any.”"
source www.thenation.com...


Like hell im falling for another false flag, this is northwood and 9/11 level of BULL#.

you want to trust them anti, be my guest, but just remember the Bible was written by man, and it is Man who is giving you these wild ideas.


"Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering European politics and business. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.

According to the Dutch story, Cozy Bear, or, to use its generic designation in the cybersecurity community, Advanced Persistent Threat 29, worked from "a space in a university building near the Red Square." That would fit the description of Moscow State University's historic campus across from Red Square, occupied today by some of its humanities departments and the Institute of Asian and African Countries, which has traditionally sent large numbers of its graduates to the SVR, the Russian foreign intelligence service."




"The Dutch hackers, reportedly, didn't just watch everything Cozy Bear -- a fluid group in which about 10 people were active at any given time -- was doing on its computers. They also took over the security camera that recorded all the comings and goings at the group's space. Dutch intelligence matched the faces of visitors against a database of known Russian agents and linked the group to the SVR. Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity firm retained by the DNC, hinted in its analysis of the breach that Cozy Bear could have been run by either SVR or the FSB, Russia's domestic intelligence service, so the Dutch report clarifies the attribution.

In November 2014, the Dutch reportedly alerted the U.S. intelligence community that Cozy Bear was attacking the State Department, and helped the National Security Agency thwart the sustained attack. The Volkskrant story also claims that, a year after it first penetrated APT Cozy Bear in the summer of 2015, the Dutch intelligence service witnessed how the Russian hackers launched "an attack on the Democratic Party in the United States."

U.S. colleagues sent cake and flowers to AIVD headquarters in Zoetermeer in appreciation. But after leaks in U.S. media that a "Western ally" had helped uncover Russian interference in the election, the Dutch became worried that their methods would be disclosed, and they've since scaled down their cooperation with U.S. intelligence services, fearing further leaks. The AIVD hackers are no longer in the Cozy Bear network, and the story says their ability to track the Russian group lasted between a year and 2.5 years.

If the story is correct, it explains why the U.S. intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference provided scant evidence. continued in next post-



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think even President Trump is using his personal cell phone to the dismay of his advisors...

Well, politicians not being good at protecting information is not surprising.


Here is the issue with trying to apply the standard to a President in terms of classified info.

It doesnt apply to the President.

Obama was giving a speech several years ago and accidentally disclosed classified material at the press conference. A discussion started about the ramifications and it was determined that since POTUS is an ultimate classifying authority for the Executive branch he can declassify whatever he chooses. So even by accidentally disclosing it its viewed as an authorized declassification.

However I was specifically addressing the point raised by DJ over Hillary.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo




posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo

If the information came from AIVD, the secrets weren't the Americans' to disclose. It also explains why the Federal Bureau of Investigation, by its own admission, never examined the DNC servers that had been penetrated, seemingly relying on data from Crowdstrike. If it had all the technical evidence from the Dutch, it may not have needed to look at the servers."
www.bloomberg.com...


"Crowdstrike Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch in the Washington Post published June 14, 2016 spoke of the lack of evidence as to how it was that somebody got onto the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers to get the emails that were ultimately published on Wikileaks in July 2016. According to the Washington Post, “CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with ‘spearphishing’ emails… ‘But we don’t have hard evidence,’ Alperovitch said,” the report stated. Nor was Alperovitch really sure who had hacked the DNC emails: " gardnernews.com...
they were lacking evidence the whole time..


finished.

Just wrecked all the arguments you made.

until evidence is presented at trial then any one with reason will have to assume it may be a false flag. as no evidence has been presented and also if you read above CrowShrieks own Co founder admitted they have NO HARD EVIDENCE OF ANY HACK AND IT WAS ALSO UNLIKELY.

you do know what hard evidence is right?
let me help you.


Pics, or it didn't happen.

I just burned your whole thread.
using left and right wing source and citations.
your done.





posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think even President Trump is using his personal cell phone to the dismay of his advisors...

Well, politicians not being good at protecting information is not surprising.


Here is the issue with trying to apply the standard to a President in terms of classified info.

It doesnt apply to the President.

Obama was giving a speech several years ago and accidentally disclosed classified material at the press conference. A discussion started about the ramifications and it was determined that since POTUS is an ultimate classifying authority for the Executive branch he can declassify whatever he chooses. So even by accidentally disclosing it its viewed as an authorized declassification.

However I was specifically addressing the point raised by DJ over Hillary.

I believe that was indeed the consensus. An accidental disclosure is one thing, but isn't intentional use of unsecured communication device a little worrying?

Like I said before, I'm waiting for the Trump administration to lock her up as he promised to do. I also think Hillary is a bit off-topic for this thread.
edit on 8Sun, 15 Jul 2018 08:15:39 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
I believe that was indeed the consensus. An accidental disclosure is one thing, but isn't intentional use of unsecured communication device a little worrying?

Like I said before, I'm waiting for the Trump administration to lock her up as he promised to do. I also think Hillary is a bit off-topic for this thread.


Intentional use to discuss classified matters is concerning.
Intentional use to talk to family and friends about nothing then who cares who is listening in (imo anyways).

As for Hillary it can be related by the DNC server and the russia hack claims. Clinton sent out 3 tweets in October of 2016 discussing Trump Russia bs. Not to mention paying for the dossier on Trump.

The 12 Russians indicted is a last ditch effort by Mueller to keep the russia narrative alive. Not one person indicted will ever see the inside of a US courtroom and by extension the evidence claimed by Mueller (hacked by Russia) will never be challenged.

A convenient way to keep the russia bs going while trying to run interference for the hack narrative.

Ironically enough the leaked emails were not edited. That point alone should be concerning for the left but they ignore it.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

hey bro, read my second post. I killed the whole discussion using facts
.

there was alot more in those sources listed too. but I wanted to keep it down to a 2 part burn.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo

Good stuff. Maybe you should start a dedicated thread on the subject.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Finally one of the emails she had on her server contained classified info by way of the name of a spy we had in Iran who was providing us with intelligence on their nuke program. Because it was on her server and because her server was compromised the source was identified to Iran and he was executed.


Do you have a source for that?



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Cotton: Clinton discussed executed Iranian scientist on email by Jacqueline Klimas | August 07, 2016

Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Sunday.

"I'm not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton's private server, there were conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman," he said on "Face the Nation." Cotton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program.



The scientist shows up in Clinton's emails back in 2010, just nine days before he returned to Iran.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!
Community Announcement re: Decorum

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Funny how you failed to mention that he disappeared on haj, resurfaced in the United States a year later, and claimed to have been held hostage. His death warrant was probably signed the moment he disappeared, and Clinton's email was completely irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: AutisticEvo


until evidence is presented at trial then any one with reason will have to assume it may be a false flag.


And when evidence is provided, you can always shout "fake!"



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join