U.S. Prosecutors Consider Charging Russian Officials in DNC Hacking Case

a reply to: DJW001

You're the one implying that "the secret investigation," of the servers has happened. I am basing my conclusion upon testimony James Comey gave before congress.

And yes, that was in January of this year.

However, until other such objectively verifiable information is published, any other conclusion is based upon the assumption that the FBI has since been granted access to the servers.

See how that works?

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: xuenchen
Could be but I'll wait for the indictments because ..........

according to people familiar with the investigation

source that demands subscription !

Good journalism ISNT FREE.

You want something of value?

PAY FOR IT.

I'm more suspect of "free news" paid for by ADVERTISERS than subscriptions.

News sources not beholden to advertisers are more likely to be honest.

Thanks but no thanks.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah.

News that's "FREE" to you and me because o advertisers is more likely to be BIASED.

Compared to a subscription model like the WSJ.

You can't TRASH the WSJ because they make people pay.

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

But you keep being you.

NEWS brought to you by MERCER FAMILY INC and KOCH Industries!

What WE want YOU to know!!!

Yeah, no thanks.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
NEWS brought to you by MERCER FAMILY INC and KOCH Industries!

What WE want YOU to know!!!

Yeah, no thanks.

Don't worry. Tomorrow you can read about this on globalresearch.ca under the headline: "Corrupt FBI agents charge innocent Russians to divert from Uranium One probe."

a reply to: DJW001
Why did CrowdStrike need the servers? Couldn't they just do an investigation through 'cyberspace' like the FBI had to do? All they had to do was make a copy of the hard drive for themselves and then hand the server to the FBI if they wanted to run their own independent investigation. The FBI most certainly has investigative tools better than CrowdStrike. How is this not Obstruction of Justice? This itself is a huge hole in the whole Russia hacked the election or Russia Trump collusion slander.

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: DJW001
Why did CrowdStrike need the servers? Couldn't they just do an investigation through 'cyberspace' like the FBI had to do? All they had to do was make a copy of the hard drive for themselves and then hand the server to the FBI if they wanted to run their own independent investigation. The FBI most certainly has investigative tools better than CrowdStrike. How is this not Obstruction of Justice? This itself is a huge hole in the whole Russia hacked the election or Russia Trump collusion slander.

I'm confused. You just explained why the FBI did not need physical access to the server, then called it obstruction of justice.

a reply to: DJW001

So you are okay with espionage against the United States?

It's not okay but it's what countries do, even the United States.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

CrowdStrike was paid very handsomely for the report they authored.

a reply to: DJW001
I don't think you're confused, you're just playing dodge ball.

The FBI needs the servers or an exact copy of the hard drive to investigate. CrowdStrike knows this and won't provide it. I'm saying the FBI should have priority of the servers, CrowdStrike gets copies of the HD if they want to investigate. The servers ARE important evidence in an investigation.

The current FBI investigation results are invalid. Their current conclusion couldn't be used in court because their DNC server information is all heresay. CrowdStrike can't be trusted for something of this magnitude. There is evidence they lied.

A thorough investigation through 'cyberspace' is impossible, in case you really didn't know.

This is a big fat nothing burger.

The defense would demand access to the servers to run their own independent analysis.

If they can not produce the servers, the judge would likely toss the case.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

What are the legal precedents here? Has there never been a hacking case tried without the physical server being examined? And why is everyone so certain that the FBI has not managed to get physical access to the server without reporting it to the press? Finally, what are the odds that Russia will extradite six of its citizens to be tried by a hostile foreign government for espionage?

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: DJW001

So you are okay with espionage against the United States?

It's not okay but it's what countries do, even the United States.

That's not much of an answer. Are you okay with your President being "chosen" by a foreign power, rather than the citizens?

I think the Russians were favoring Sanders, not Trump.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer

originally posted by: DJW001
So you are okay with espionage against the United States? If Russia does not extradite the alleged criminals, it could mean another round of sanctions. Are you okay with the Russian people having their economy undermined further? (I'm not.)

Careful, the NSA and others are doing espionage against others all the time. Are you ready to send members of the intelligence community to another country for spying? I'm sure foreign governments don't recognize our NOBUS doctrine.

I would not expect the United States government to hand over one of our spies to a foreign government, which is why I doubt Russia will comply with the extradition request. Or was your post just an attempt at whataboutism?

Just thinking of the sanctimonious hypocrites in congress ready to cast the first stone.

a reply to: DJW001
Without the evidence (the server) there is no case, period. You can draw consclusions based on the routing of data but you can't actually tell what the data is that's being routed without seeing the servers, afaik.

CrowdStrinke would be countering the FBI's claim that they didn't hand over the server after repeated requests from the rooftops. This can't be good for CrowdStrike's business, they would have reported it if they had handed them over.

Zero chance on extradition. It's laughable to even put it at 1%.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

So if there is zero chance of extradition, what is actually going on here?

originally posted by: xuenchen
I think the Russians were favoring Sanders, not Trump.

Interesting opinion. Why do you think that?

a reply to: xuenchen


Still waiting. Why do you say this?