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

originally posted by: Konduit
These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

Right???

Thanks for being the one to bring it up here

a reply to: Xcathdra

To this day, the DNC servers have not been forensically inspected by the FBI so we have no proof the servers were even hacked, and if hacked, by whom?

How many times a day on average do you post this? Dozens? Repeating it 10,000 times won't make it any more true — it's disinformation that only makes susceptible people more ignorant.

First, it's moronic to believe that the DNC servers are the only source of evidence of the hack and only somebody who had no idea what they were talking about would ever say something that absurd.

Second, the claim turns out to not be true. The FBI was provided with images of compromised servers.

Third, if there was a plot to hoax a hack perpetrated by CrowdStrike, fabricating forensic evidence of a hack on servers under their control would not be a serious impediment. All they'd need to do is install the implants and doctor any logs. The theory that they would withhold forensic evidence to conceal the lack of a hack is just dumb when they could easily fabricate it.

What they couldn't easily fabricate is everything outside the network, including things like the C2 servers that were used to communicate with the implants, any ISP logs relating to the hack, etc. On top of that, there is in fact publicly available evidence of the hack that CrowdStrike couldn't have faked, at least not after the fact. Here's some starting points:

Secureworks - Threat Group-4127 Targets Google Accounts

AP & Secureworks - Inside story: How Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails

ThreatConnect & Fidelis - FANCY BEAR Has an (IT) Itch that They Can't Scratch

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Defense witness #1 will most likely be Rod Rosenstein. He was the US attorney who cleared Manafort of all of these charges a decade + ago.

The incestuous treason runs deep in the state. It really is, when all is said and done nothing more than a desperate coverup of decades of malfeasance pretty much across the board with various shadings of guilt shared by all.

Rod would seem to be the number one witness in a few cases. Certainly if Mueller were pursuing obstruction is the other big one. He, of course, ahem, sees no need for his recusal. According to him, he'd be doing us a great disservice if he recused.

Did anyone else ltao when Annee said she'd studied U1 and there was nothing sleazy about it? Gawd.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thank you! I tried to confirm or debunk Manafort being contracted to the Podesta Group and couldn't... but this would make sense. I'll have to go read some stuff again with this in mind, and I'll bet it makes more sense to me!

Very interesting about John not being with the Podesta Group since '93. Good to know!

a reply to: Xcathdra

As said - - I have previously researched Zero Hedge before.

In December 2012, Bank of America, which had been criticized by the site in the past, blocked its employees' access to Zero Hedge from BOA servers.[8] The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world."[3] Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial.[18][10] Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it."[10] Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information.[19] Bloomberg Markets noted in 2016 that since its founding in the middle of the financial crisis, "Zero Hedge has grown from a blog to an Internet powerhouse. Often distrustful of the 'establishment' and almost always bearish, it's known for a pessimistic world view. Posts entitled 'Stocks Are In a Far More Precarious State Than Was Ever Truly Believed Possible' and 'America's Entitled (And Doomed) Upper Middle Class' are not uncommon."[5] en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Konduit
These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

Have you ever bothered to actually research the Uranium sales?

Uranium is a commodity that's bought/sold/traded all the time.

Uranium has many uses.

Uranium has 3 uses;

1. Energy... which Russia is currently selling to EU countries like Germany at the tune of billions of dollars a month. The same countries we are paying to "protect" from Russia.
2. Munitions and armor. Russia was about 20 years behind the US... until they got the resources to start developing depleted Uranium to use against the people that sold it to them.
3. Nukes. Weapons of mass destruction.

Like I said, it's #ing insane. And with the latest push by the left to start WW3, it makes you wonder when Democrats decided to push neo-con policies.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Nice try at deflection.

There was no forensic c analysis done on the DNC servers by law enforcement .Comey already admitted this during his congressional testimony.

a reply to: Annee

Stop deflecting. The Hill article has a statement directly from Uranium One that says they exported 25% of their uranium outside the US and outside N. America.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Annee

Stop deflecting. The Hill article has a statement directly from Uranium One that says they exported 25% of their uranium outside the US and outside N. America.

Stop using Conspiracy sites as FACT

theantediluvian - - explained it with real FACTS.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Fox News eve debunked uranium one.

Hillary isn’t even who you would pay off if you wanted to..

a reply to: Annee

Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

After the Obama administration approved the sale of a Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a firm owned by Russia’s government, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured Congress and the public the new owners couldn’t export any raw nuclear fuel from America’s shores.

“No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets.

A year later, the nuclear regulator repeated the assurance in a letter to Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican in whose state Uranium One operated mines.

“Neither Uranium One Inc. nor AMRZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the exports of uranium for use in reactor fuel,” then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote to Barrasso.

The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

and the kicker -

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.”

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Officials at RSB, Cameco and Rosatom did not return repeated phone calls or emails seeking comment.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.

a reply to: Boadicea

The Gateway Pudel - Wiki

You guys are funny as hell! How you find all this crazy websites? So, if CNN is Fake News, whats that? Double Fake News?

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's all so insidious and incestuous...

Paul Sperry has been putting out some really good stuff lately. I've especially appreciated his work tracking all the hateful protesting and violence back to Obama and his thugs.

The myth of Obama’s ‘disappearance’

This one's from right after the inauguration, but still as relevant today:

Obama-linked activists have a ‘training manual’ for protesting Trump

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

The immunity granted is for 5 potential witnesses and the immunity only applies if any of them are called as witnesses at the trial. As I understand it thats the only immunity granted and as you pointed out Judge Ellis has not ruled on it yet.

Because they are potential "witnesses" the motion was filed under seal and the names of the witnesses are restricted unless called to appear in court.

Ahhhh... thank you. If the names would be released upon actually testifying, I would feel better about that. I may or may not feel better about the immunity, but at least we would know.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The motion by Mueller came from Manaforts in limine motion. They wanted Mueller to define his prosecution which is why Mueller said he would not be raising any Trump Russia collusion in Manaforts prosecution. By doing this Muellers motion is to prohibit Manafort from raising issues related to that investigation. By extension it prevents Manafort from attacking the prosecutions prosecution basis that stemmed from the Russia investigation.

The other was to prevent Manafort from arguing selective prosecution however if Podestas are given immunity I dont see how that motion could be granted.

Thank you -- much appreciated. But wow! I had to read that three times to make sure I was understanding... You explained it very well, it's just my feeble brain trying to make sense of it that's the problem.

I really hate these legal games and technicalities played by government. "Justice" shouldn't be this hard.

a reply to: Boadicea

If Tony Podesta is one of the witnesses they're seeking immunity for, another one will be likely be Vin Weber. He was GOP member of the House from like '81-'93 (from Minnesota). He was a principal in Clark & Weinstock which later merged with Mercury (briefly Mercury/Clark & Weinstock but now Mercury again). He was also a foreign policy advisor to Mitt Romney in 2012 while he was doing this lobbying work.

Also apparently in 2012, he was under contract to lobby for Gazprom. Here's a pretty lengthy article about Mr. Weber and his involvement with Manafort and Gates:

How a Champion of Democracy Became a Manafort Flack

As it's been portrayed in everything I've read, Gates headed up the US side of things while Manafort was on the Ukrainian end (and directing concurrent lobbying efforts in European countries). Podesta Group lobbied the Democrats while Mercury lobbied Republicans.

Mercury at least has claimed that they were misled by Gates about the source of funding. I've read reporting from sources within Podesta Group that claimed that there was a lot of pushback on Tony Podesta over the lobbying as it was generally felt that no matter what Gates and Manafort said, the ECMU was a front for Yanukovych/PoR.

My opinion? Everyone involved knew full well that they were lobbying illegally for the Ukrainian government.

I won't shed a tear for any of them if they lose everything and wind up in jail. I also have mixed feelings about immunity for criminals who testify against their cohorts.

That said, when it comes to this specific foreign lobbying campaign, Manafort and Gates were at the top of the food chain.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thank you for the link!

My opinion? Everyone involved knew full well that they were lobbying illegally for the Ukrainian government.

I won't shed a tear for any of them if they lose everything and wind up in jail. I also have mixed feelings about immunity for criminals who testify against their cohorts.

I'm still trying to understand it all, but I pretty much agree. Everyone knew exactly what they were doing and I don't have any sympathy for any of them. Lay down with dogs and get bitten by fleas. I don't like that Manafort and Gates seem to be singled out though. And that's the main reason I've tried to understand all of this, to know if they really are being singled out or not...

This isn't helping. How does it make sense to let five guilty people go free to prosecute two?

Nm

Can't get link to work.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theantediluvian

Nice try at deflection.

There was no forensic c analysis done on the DNC servers by law enforcement .Comey already admitted this during his congressional testimony.

Deflection from what? Here's what Comey said:

COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.

HURD: Director Rogers, did the NSA ever get access to the DNC hardware?

ROGERS: The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job...

HURD: Good copy. So director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaks and when -- you have still been -- never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were -- that were hacked by the Russians.

COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this -- my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

HURD: The -- at what point did the company and the DNC use -- share that forensic information to you?

COMEY: I don't remember for sure. I think June. I could be wrong about that.

The "forensics" that he references are the drive images.

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

There were 140 or so servers, most virtualized. The "server" in those cases is actually a virtual machine. Do you know what a virtual machine is composed of? A virtual disk — a drive image (or more than one) such as a VHD or VMDK — and a few files with config details. There's no one physical server, the virtual disks reside on shared storage and multiple VMs run on each host, sharing processor/memory resources.

It would make no real sense for the FBI to be given hardware. Giving them drive images is for all intents and purposes giving them the servers. It's not like you're going to dust the hardware for fingerprints or something.

But hey, nice deflection on your part, amirite?

And again, the servers are one source of forensic data and ironically, given your desperation to right off the hack as CrowdStrike hoax, the source that CrowdStrike could most easily manipulate to fabricate a hoax.

a reply to: Annee

Your link is bad link and why would Uranium One retract their statement when they claim they complied with all applicable laws.

Uranium One admitted to what you say didnt occur.

If you cant accept that then take it up with Uranium One.