Trump To "Counter" DNC Lawsuit; Seeks Servers, Clinton Emails And "Pakistani Mystery Man"

originally posted by: xuenchen
So this "lawsuit" from Democrats is because Mueller missed the mark I imagine.

Swish

😎

It follows the similar lawsuit brought by the DNC in 1972 against Nixon and his re-election campaign. That suit didnt close until they reached a settlement right after Nixon's Resignation in 1974. So its impossible to glean anything of the Mueller investigation from this action.

Here is Awan behind Gowdy at a hearing talking about Russian hacking about a month before he tried to flee the country. Look at him squirm and how uncomfortable he is. That says it all. The worst part is at 1:35 when he giggles but holds it back and gives a little smirk when Gowdy is inferring that Russia may have been responsible for attempted hacks during the election. Awan might have thought he was getting away with it there.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: JHumm
That server will be wiped, like with a cloth or something.
When you tell theses ads hats that you want something, it seems to disappear.

Basic IT practices would be to destroy and replace those servers after they were found to be compromised. I cant imagine they kept compromised servers sitting around. FBI has copies of the servers so they would have had no reason not to do so.

Hopefully they didnt just wipe them and continue to use them because that doesnt always get rid of everything injected into the system by hackers.

Yes they wiped them after not allowing the fbi to see them

Nothing shady about that!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: JHumm
That server will be wiped, like with a cloth or something.
When you tell theses ads hats that you want something, it seems to disappear.

Basic IT practices would be to destroy and replace those servers after they were found to be compromised. I cant imagine they kept compromised servers sitting around. FBI has copies of the servers so they would have had no reason not to do so.

Hopefully they didnt just wipe them and continue to use them because that doesnt always get rid of everything injected into the system by hackers.

Yes they wiped them after not allowing the fbi to see them

Nothing shady about that!

Correct nothing shady at all. FBI got a full image of the server. No need to have the physical thing when you already have everything on it.

a reply to: xuenchen

Which I am sure the people doing a cover up (if there is one) would know all about how discovery works.

So that tells me that there will be nothing found by trumps team during discovery.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: JHumm
That server will be wiped, like with a cloth or something.
When you tell theses ads hats that you want something, it seems to disappear.

Basic IT practices would be to destroy and replace those servers after they were found to be compromised. I cant imagine they kept compromised servers sitting around. FBI has copies of the servers so they would have had no reason not to do so.

Hopefully they didnt just wipe them and continue to use them because that doesnt always get rid of everything injected into the system by hackers.

Yes they wiped them after not allowing the fbi to see them

Nothing shady about that!

Correct nothing shady at all. FBI got a full image of the server. No need to have the physical thing when you already have everything on it.

You s what makes you wonder why the fbi and investigators didn’t just allow Cohen to send them full copies of all of his servers and documents

When it comes to the dnc, the fbi is willing to take their employees word in who hacked it

But with trump people, they subpoena the actual evidence

There is no remotely plausible reason why the dnc wouldn’t be begging for the fbi to look at the server in hopes of getting proof of Russian hacking

Yet they fought against that

There is no reasoning n why the fbi wouldn’t demand having physical access to the actual server

Yet they didn’t and instead took dnc employees corwdstrikes word for it

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: JHumm
That server will be wiped, like with a cloth or something.
When you tell theses ads hats that you want something, it seems to disappear.

Basic IT practices would be to destroy and replace those servers after they were found to be compromised. I cant imagine they kept compromised servers sitting around. FBI has copies of the servers so they would have had no reason not to do so.

Hopefully they didnt just wipe them and continue to use them because that doesnt always get rid of everything injected into the system by hackers.

Yes they wiped them after not allowing the fbi to see them

Nothing shady about that!

Correct nothing shady at all. FBI got a full image of the server. No need to have the physical thing when you already have everything on it.

You s what makes you wonder why the fbi and investigators didn’t just allow Cohen to send them full copies of all of his servers and documents

When it comes to the dnc, the fbi is willing to take their employees word in who hacked it

But with trump people, they subpoena the actual evidence

There is no remotely plausible reason why the dnc wouldn’t be begging for the fbi to look at the server in hopes of getting proof of Russian hacking

Yet they fought against that

There is no reasoning n why the fbi wouldn’t demand having physical access to the actual server

Yet they didn’t and instead took dnc employees corwdstrikes word for it

Because the DNC wasnt party of a crime they were the victim. I cant believe you think the victim of a crime should be held to the same standard as a possible criminal.

Also the DNC didnt need the FBI to tell them Russia had hacked them because they already had a report from Crowdstrike, who is a FBI contractor for the very thing the DNC hired them.

Crowdstrike gave the FBI the report they made and the FBI got images of the server. They didnt need physical access.

a reply to: Grambler

It seems like President Trump was looking forward to this...hoping for a legal pathway to have top foresnic experts examine the DNC hardware, personnel files, e-mails. Maybe the FBI will RAID the offices and homes of top DNC officials and their attorneys, now that "the Cohen precedent" has been legally established.

a reply to: Pyle

All of the info that was downloaded from the DNC was done in 87 seconds making it impossible to do without directly connecting to the server with a thumb drive or cable. It could not have been done remotely. It was a leak, not a hack.

A hack from a foreign power on a US political party before an election makes not just the DNC the victim but the US as a whole. Once the US is a victim, the DNC doesn't get to pick what to do about it. The FBI needed to figure out what the hell was going on with that server. I don't care what Crowdstike or whoever they hired to lie for them, they know full well it was a leak and not the Russians. Knowing that it wasn't the Russians and blaming it on them anyway is probably illegal somehow in the same way as hiding evidence or filling a false police report.

a reply to: Grambler

No worries. I recognize that my positions on many issues are radical even when compared to the average radical. If I took disagreements personally I'd be sharpening axes against pretty much everyone I've ever known or interacted with. I find your positions to be amazingly fair, moderate, and consistent in virtually every topic I've seen you participate in.

There have been issues I've disagreed with Trump on. His position on banning bump stocks and entertaining any degree of compromise on gun control, for example. I also find his immigration policies and position on DACA to be far too liberal, but the Syria issue and swinging muscle around in foreign theaters of operation are simply something that doesn't in any way bother me...

a reply to: Pyle

If I was the dnc, and believed that Russia hacked my servers, and worked in collusion with trump, I would be begging to have the fbi look at the physical server

If I was the fbi, and knew this Russian hacking case was one of the most important politically charged cases in the history of the fbi, and that the results of this could literally possible lead to an armed conflict with Russia, I would not trust a contractor paid for by the dnc, I would want to see the evidence myself

Why do we even have an fbi if on one of the highest cases they ever have they rely on co tractors that work for the dnc?

a reply to: xenon129
Well put!

Remember, the dnc and many Dems and others have been saying the Russian influence was no less than an act of war, and the literal subversion of our election process

Why is the fbi farming out that investigation to a dnc paid firm?

What did they have better to do with their time?

I guess comey McCabe strzok and Page were too busy writing books, campaigning for their spouses political careers, coming up with insurance policies against trump, and having affairs to actually do their job.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: xenon129
Well put!

Remember, the dnc and many Dems and others have been saying the Russian influence was no less than an act of war, and the literal subversion of our election process

Why is the fbi farming out that investigation to a dnc paid firm?

What did they have better to do with their time?

I guess comey McCabe strzok and Page were too busy writing books, campaigning for their spouses political careers, coming up with insurance policies against trump, and having affairs to actually do their job.

Isn't there a law about adultery in the FBI?

Or is that place one big orgy?

Even in my kitchens it was frowned upon.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Pyle

If I was the dnc, and believed that Russia hacked my servers, and worked in collusion with trump, I would be begging to have the fbi look at the physical server

If I was the fbi, and knew this Russian hacking case was one of the most important politically charged cases in the history of the fbi, and that the results of this could literally possible lead to an armed conflict with Russia, I would not trust a contractor paid for by the dnc, I would want to see the evidence myself

Why do we even have an fbi if on one of the highest cases they ever have they rely on co tractors that work for the dnc?

First, the FBI didnt get involved until Late July 2016 2 months after the hacks were first noticed by the DNC and over a month after CrowdStrike released its findings. So at the time the DNC didnt know about the Trump campaign-Russia connections (let me be clear people knew Trump had something going on with Russia because it is the one thing he would never attack but they didnt know what his campaign was doing until much later). Hell the FBI had only just started looking into things by this time with Papadopoulos in late July.

Second, the FBI did do its own investigation and the DHS and DNI put out a joint statement using the FBI investigation and US IC findings in Oct 2016. Article including the statement.

Finally, other cybersecurity firms with no financial ties to the DNC put out similar statements to Crowdstrike.
ThreatConnect
Fidelis Cybersecurity

a reply to: Grambler

Under discovery because of a suit for what losses??!?!


Suing people requires one party to have lost somthing because of the others negligence.


A civil lawsuit is there when a crime hasn’t really been commited, but one party has suffered a loss and so is requesting to be made whole again (legal terminology).

Who suffered a loss because of hillary ‘s emails?? What damages are being sought??


See the DNC has damaged to claim..

“There candidate could/would have won if not for the trump campaigns malfeasance.”

The DNC would in fact be suing for the value of the presidency.

They suffered a loss, and are requesting to be made whole.


Good luck getting a judge to agree with them, but they likely have the criteria met..

A wronged party (DNC), a loss suffered ( presidency) and a request to be made whole (whatever dollar amount they sue for)..


What is this BS stories version of those required things..


Who was wronged by the emails????


What loss was suffered??

What is the dollar amount of that loss??


Things like procedural errors by government employees would be the poblem of the DOJ. The state/fed can press charges, but a random citizen cannot even sue for that.

This is just one more example of conservative media assuming its viewers are stupid.

a reply to: DBCowboy

BWAHAHAHA

Your laughing at them, when it is literally legally impossible for trump to sue the US government OR Hillary Clinton for the email thing?!?!


Trump plays y’all for idiots and you think he “showed them” lol?!?!


So who will the.. it’s not defendant in civil court.. man I can’t remember..

Partitioner maybe??

Screw iit..


So who is the wronged party???

Who suffered a loss through no fault of their own??


Who is requesting to be “made whole again”??

What is the dollar amount they are suing for??

All 3 of those things is required to bring a lawsuit..


This is a criminal matter.. either the doj charges her or no one does..


Unless someone can prove they went out of buisness because hillary didn’t swap to a government server when the memo to came out..

Trump just thinks your stupid..

originally posted by: xenon129
Here is Awan behind Gowdy at a hearing talking about Russian hacking about a month before he tried to flee the country. Look at him squirm and how uncomfortable he is. That says it all. The worst part is at 1:35 when he giggles but holds it back and gives a little smirk when Gowdy is inferring that Russia may have been responsible for attempted hacks during the election. Awan might have thought he was getting away with it there.

Speaking of Gowdy. Meh.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

Under discovery because of a suit for what losses??!?!


Suing people requires one party to have lost somthing because of the others negligence.


A civil lawsuit is there when a crime hasn’t really been commited, but one party has suffered a loss and so is requesting to be made whole again (legal terminology).

Who suffered a loss because of hillary ‘s emails?? What damages are being sought??


See the DNC has damaged to claim..

“There candidate could/would have won if not for the trump campaigns malfeasance.”

The DNC would in fact be suing for the value of the presidency.

They suffered a loss, and are requesting to be made whole.


Good luck getting a judge to agree with them, but they likely have the criteria met..

A wronged party (DNC), a loss suffered ( presidency) and a request to be made whole (whatever dollar amount they sue for)..


What is this BS stories version of those required things..


Who was wronged by the emails????


What loss was suffered??

What is the dollar amount of that loss??


Things like procedural errors by government employees would be the poblem of the DOJ. The state/fed can press charges, but a random citizen cannot even sue for that.

This is just one more example of conservative media assuming its viewers are stupid.

So what about the bumping uglies?

No problem or does the DOJ need to deal with it instead of HR?

Oh wait, they were transferred there.

a reply to: Grambler

Like he was gonna sue all those women who accused him during the campaign. Remember..
Or the special prosecutor he was going to design to go after hillary.
Lol

He's desperate.

He's got more troubles than he can handle now.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: DBCowboy

BWAHAHAHA

Your laughing at them, when it is literally legally impossible for trump to sue the US government OR Hillary Clinton for the email thing?!?!


Trump plays y’all for idiots and you think he “showed them” lol?!?!


So who will the.. it’s not defendant in civil court.. man I can’t remember..

Partitioner maybe??

Screw iit..


So who is the wronged party???

Who suffered a loss through no fault of their own??


Who is requesting to be “made whole again”??

What is the dollar amount they are suing for??

All 3 of those things is required to bring a lawsuit..


This is a criminal matter.. either the doj charges her or no one does..


Unless someone can prove they went out of buisness because hillary didn’t swap to a government server when the memo to came out..

Trump just thinks your stupid..

Frivolous is frivolous.

I think it won't get past any judge.