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 Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity and Hiding it from the Public

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I say it is because they do not exist...




posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Boadicea

If it is the Podestas, this is the best way to sweep them under an immunity rug.


Exactly my thought. So simple and effortless... and despicable!

Apparently the immunity will only become effective if the witness(es) actually testify, and at that point their name(s) will be public. We'll have to wait and see I guess. Nothing we can do about it; it's all up to the judge.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Because they worked together and are dirty money launderers.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Boadicea

I say it is because they do not exist...


Because the witnesses don't exist? Now I'm quite intrigued... what would be the strategy? Spell it out for me! (I can be a little slow sometimes...)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The witnesses who have not been associated with the case in the public sector are asking for it.
They have refused to answer on the grounds of self incrimination. So Mueller has asked the judge to compel them to answer by granting them immunity. Their identities will remain anonymous until and unless they are called to testify.
Mueller isn't offering anything he's demanding their participation. Immunity is on the judge to grant of not.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

He's not offering them anything. They are refusing to answer. He's asking the judge to compel them to answer by granting them immunity.
I don't think these are people any of us know anything about.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea


WHAT?!?! No way! All the Dims say that Mueller is a "straight shooter"!


They conveniently forgot that Mueller helped with getting into Iraq in the 2000's

They hate that...but love him. I wonder why.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

The FBI was given forensic images so I would assume that they did.

It's important to understand that the whole "but the servers!" thing is something of a red herring anyway and not just because we now know that forensic images were provided to the FBI.

If CrowdStrike wanted to hoax a hack, they could have fabricated forensic evidence on the servers and then called the FBI and said, "OMG LOOK WHAT WE FOUND!" — and it would not have been terribly difficult to do. I'm not saying that forensic analysis of the servers isn't important but it's one source of forensic data.

None of this was happening in a vacuum.

For instance, the implants on the DCCC & DNC machines phoned home to command and control servers. Apparently, there were C&C servers in two states. Without referring back to the indictment, one of them was a VPS (virtual private server) at a datacenter in AZ. The indictment indicates that the FBI got their hands on the command and control servers because there are things in the indictment that could only be known from there or from surveilling the hackers.

As I've posted repeatedly, there is in fact publicly available evidence that was uncovered by multiple, independent groups.

For instance, in March of 2016, Secureworks (a managed security services subsidiary of Dell) stumbled on and watched the spearphishing campaign as it was happening.

Inside story: How Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails


The AP’s reconstruction— based on a database of 19,000 malicious links recently shared by cybersecurity firm Secureworks — shows how the hackers worked their way around the Clinton campaign’s top-of-the-line digital security to steal chairman John Podesta’s emails in March 2016.


The rogue messages that first flew across the internet March 10 were dressed up to look like they came from Google, the company that provided the Clinton campaign’s email infrastructure. The messages urged users to boost their security or change their passwords while in fact steering them toward decoy websites designed to collect their credentials.

Within hours of a second volley emailed March 11, the hackers hit pay dirt. All of a sudden, they were sending links aimed at senior Clinton officials’ nonpublic 2016 addresses, including those belonging to longtime Clinton aide Robert Russo and campaign chairman John Podesta.


The malicious links were shortened URLs. Secureworks was pulling all of this off the Bitly API, starting in late March. All created by the same account. Bitly captures not only what the shortened URL corresponds to but when it was created, when it's clicked, etc. So they know things like this:


A malicious link was generated for Podesta at 11:28 a.m. Moscow time, the AP found. Documents subsequently published by WikiLeaks show that the rogue email arrived in his inbox six minutes later. The link was clicked twice.


There's no way CrowdStrike could fake that # unless back in March, they were pretending to be Russian hackers and running a massive spearphishing campaign and phished John Podesta. The Bitly link appears in the phishing email, in the WikiLeaks Podesta email archive. The links are allocated automatically by Bitly.

If you go to that link now, you get a big warning splash from Bitly and you can see where it leads to a URL under "myaccount.google.com-securitysettingpage*tk" (last period replaced with an asterisk by me). The links by the way all had an encoded unique identifier so they could track back who hitting the server even if the would be victim didn't attempt to login to change their security options.

Now, "Guccifer 2.0" had reached out to a number of reporters by email, offering previews of stolen material hosted at DCLeaks. One of the people they had a page for was William "Billy" Rinehart, a DNC regional coordinator. TSG contacted him after finding him on the site and he forwarded to TSG the phishing email.

In that March 22, 2016 email, there was a Bitly shortened URL and the spoofed Google host that it led to was "myaccount.google.com-securitysettingpage*ml" — and it was clicked once. Both the .ml and .tk hosts resolved to 80.255.12*237 (again, my asterisk). You can see all the phishing domains resolving to it here: Passive

That's the IP of the server that was used to host the spoofed Google login pages to capture the account info from the victims. It's pretty clear that the same attacker who phished Podesta, also phished Rinehart. Podesta's emails ended up being released by WikiLeaks. Rineharts were released by "Guccifer 2.0" to TSG, through DC Leaks.

related links: The Smoking Gun, ThreatConnect.

I could on, this is but one example. All the pieces fit and the evidence is nothing that CrowdStrike could have fabricated.

The "what about the server!" thing is a stupid talking point.
edit on 2018-7-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

He's not offering them anything. They are refusing to answer. He's asking the judge to compel them to answer by granting them immunity.


I don't want to play semantics, but "compel" implies some kind of force. Granting immunity sounds more like a gift than a means to compel testimony... threatening criminal charges and/or contempt of court would be more compelling.


I don't think these are people any of us know anything about.


That may very well be, at least for some if not all.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: theantediluvian

Did the FBI take a look at them or are they relying on Crowdstrike?



They are relying on crowdstrike and did not examine the servers.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

So he worked for the fbi. So what. Crowd strike is an organization the FBI employed quite frequently. What would be so unusual for a computer expert from one organization to join an organization he was familiar with?
Everything is a conspiracy around here.
I know I know.


and yet the FBI didnt examine the servers.

Using crowdstrike is problematic because they are not an independent entity. They were hired by the DNC to deal with IT issues and their measures failed. Crowdstrike has every reason to blame someone else for their failures, just as Democrats are doing.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

and yet Comey testified they never received anything like that.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Boadicea

He's not offering them anything. They are refusing to answer. He's asking the judge to compel them to answer by granting them immunity.


I don't want to play semantics, but "compel" implies some kind of force. Granting immunity sounds more like a gift than a means to compel testimony... threatening criminal charges and/or contempt of court would be more compelling.


I don't think these are people any of us know anything about.


That may very well be, at least for some if not all.


If the people arent charged with a crime then testifying should be no big deal. The only reason to grant immunity for testimony is so a person who broke the law can admit they broke the law and then describe when and how and with whom.

If they are material witnesses refusing to testify and immunity is not needed then the prosecutor can obtain a material witness warrant from the court. The people in question are then arrested and held until such time they comply.

18 U.S. Code § 3144 - Release or detention of a material witness
edit on 18-7-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

and yet the FBI didnt examine the servers.

Using crowdstrike is problematic because they are not an independent entity. They were hired by the DNC to deal with IT issues and their measures failed. Crowdstrike has every reason to blame someone else for their failures, just as Democrats are doing.


Yeah, I don't know how anyone would fail to see the problem here. That takes some serious disconnect. No need for voluminous roundabouts when, whoops, there it is.


edit on 18-7-2018 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Xcathdra

and yet the FBI didnt examine the servers.

Using crowdstrike is problematic because they are not an independent entity. They were hired by the DNC to deal with IT issues and their measures failed. Crowdstrike has every reason to blame someone else for their failures, just as Democrats are doing.


Yeah, I don't know how anyone would fail to see the problem here. That takes some serious disconnect. No need for voluminous roundabouts when, whoops, there it is.



Given crowdstrikes involvement with the DNC, the fact the person who conducted the examination of the server used to work for Mueller at the FBI, was promoted by Mueller while at the FBI and the complete conflicts of interests involved crowdstrike is not reliable. Even more so since they have had to retract parts of their report because of flawed methods.

People refuse to see it because they dont like the facts not fitting their agenda.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


The only reason to grant immunity for testimony is so a person who broke the law can admit they broke the law and then describe when and how and with whom.
No. The reason to grant use immunity is so that a witness cannot refuse to testify on the grounds that doing so may cause self-incrimination. There is no requirement that guilt be admitted.



The people in question are then arrested and held until such time they comply.
Or until they are judged to have a valid Fifth Amendment claim (no one can be compelled to provide testimony by which they may incriminate themselves). At which time the witness must be released or offered immunity in exchange for their testimony. If immunity is granted and the witness still refuses to testify they can be held in contempt of court. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

www.rcfp.org...

edit on 7/18/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Or until they are judged to have a valid Fifth Amendment claim...


I'm confused. Who would make such a judgment except the witness themselves?


...(no one can be compelled to provide testimony which may incriminate themselves).


True.


At which time the witness must be released or offered immunity.


How about arrested??? Presuming that the prosecutor knows the crimes the witness is wanting to hide of course. But if the crimes aren't known, I would think an investigation would be in order at the very least.

The prosecutor still has a responsibility and duty to pursue justice for any crimes the potential witness committed.



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



Who would make such a judgment except the witness themselves?
The court.



But if the crimes aren't known, I would think an investigation would be in order at the very least.
If someone is being called to testify at a trial, there is a crime(s). Remember we are talking about witnesses, not those who have been indicted.


The prosecutor still has a responsibility and duty to pursue justice for any crimes the potential witness committed.
Which is why a witness (or the accused) cannot be compelled to testify in a trial.

But yes, a material witness can be detained without charges unless they have a valid 5th claim. Isn't that lovely?

edit on 7/18/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


But yes, a material witness can be detained without charges unless they have a valid 5th claim. Isn't that lovely?


Yes, just lovely... just as lovely as a judge deciding if someone has a "valid" claim to plead the 5th. Pretty much defeats the whole purpose of the 5th.

I'm thinking if I were ever in such a position, I would just bide my time and take my chances and not say nothin' to no one until I was on the stand under oath and actually asked a question I didn't want to answer. Then I'd plead my 5th and see what happens.... or just "forget" stuff.



posted on Jul, 19 2018 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
No. The reason to grant use immunity is so that a witness cannot refuse to testify on the grounds that doing so may cause self-incrimination. There is no requirement that guilt be admitted.

No - there are 2 types of immunity granted to witnesses (and witnesses being key)-
* - Limited use immunity
* - Transactional immunity

Both types of immunity require the person to testify in exchange for a promise they wont be charged for the crimes they are divulging in a legal proceeding. Immunity is only granted to a witness if they are going to admit to a crime as a witness for the prosecution.

If a person has material information about a topic that is the subject of a criminal proceeding they can be subpoenaed. If they did not break any laws then they are required to testify if subpoenaed. If the witness has material information and refuse to testify that is where the material witness designation and material witness warrant come into play.


originally posted by: Phage
Or until they are judged to have a valid Fifth Amendment claim (no one can be compelled to provide testimony by which they may incriminate themselves). At which time the witness must be released or offered immunity in exchange for their testimony. If immunity is granted and the witness still refuses to testify they can be held in contempt of court. At least, that's how it's supposed to work.

and again we come back to the 2 types of immunity but ONLY if the testimony being sought would place the person in a position of admitting to a crime in a legal proceeding. A persons 5th amendment rights (in criminal proceedings as civil have a lesser standard for the 5th amendment) only apply if they are in a situation where their answers might implicate them in a crime.

It has no valid application for witnesses who are not facing any charges and whose testimony does not implicate them in any crime. A person cannot simply invoke their 5th amendment in order to get out of testifying in court.

A material witness warrant can be sought if the witness in question has material facts in a criminal case and refuse all attempts at service. Once a material witness warrant is issued and executed then the standard application of due process applies just as if they were a defendant. That includes being released on ROR or being issued a bail amount to ensure their appearance and testimony. In extreme cases they can be jailed to ensure their appearance. Once their involvement in the case has been resolved (testifying or providing evidence and are released by both sides from being called further) then they are released.

As a side note there are many different forms of immunity that can be granted however when it comes to a witness the 2 above are it. Limited use (derivative) immunity or transnational immunity.

Transactional immunity is complete immunity.
Limited use immunity restricts the prosecutor from using the testimony of the witness to prosecute them for the crime in question however if the prosecutor develops information outside the testimony of the witness then they can still be prosecuted for the crime they are admitting to in court (their testimony).

A person can invoke their 5th amendment in court only if their answers can incriminate them. 5th amendment applications in criminal proceedings are complete IE they cant pick and chose when to invoke the 5th amendment. Once invoked it remains in effect. If the person makes statements before or after they invoke then the effectively waive their 5th amendment right. A jury in criminal proceedings are instructed that they cannot infer guilt from a person who invokes their 5th amendment rights.

In civil cases the 5th amendment is not absolute. A person can invoke their 5th amendment however a judge can order the person to answer the question. If the person still invokes their 5th amendment the judge instructs the jury that they may infer guilt from their invocation of the 5th.
edit on 19-7-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join