Well I guess we are all lucky that we have the benefit of your belief. We don't have to worry about that bothersome and inconvenient thing called evidence.
Peter Strzok Fired.
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Who decides the "crime scene"? Fox News and Hannity in particular?
It was a nothing burger perpetrated by the right. Trump has more skeletons in his closet as Omarosa said that "Trump has met his Match".
There are now mountains of evidence, from Don Jr's emails to Stone's tweets and Trump's announcement of upcoming Clinton hacks.
All part of the ongoing Mueller investigation.
Are you admitting you have no evidence to back up your own personal conspiracy theory?
Every time you post you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the process and law. I guess in your world investigators are supposed to release their evidence BEFORE they complete their investigation. Fortunately other than in the Nunes. Jordan world that is not the way it works. Now come back and once again demonstrate how clueless you are.
I'm saying you have no evidence of collusion. Therefore all that is left is conspiracy.
I understand that this investigation is based on a lie.
And when no collusion is the result then the real investigation can begin.
I'm saying you must be as senile as Trump to make this claim.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17438386/trump-russia-collusion
Ok. Sorry for the delay. Contrary to views of some here on TERB, I'm actually involved in quite a bit more than hanging out at TERB.
I'm going to interpret your response, for sake of simplicity, as that you substantially agree with the first 5 points. Alright, are we able to agree on the following:
1. Crowdstrike employees were not the only persons with access to the 140 servers between the time that the DNC noted suspected system intrusions, and the time that Crowdstrike were hired and commenced their investigation.
2. It is unknown whether whoever downloaded material form the 140 servers became aware that Crowdstrike was investigating suspected intrusions, prior to Crowdstrike creating images of the 140 drives.
3. It is unknown whether anyone other than Crowdstrike had access to the 140 servers once Crowdstrike started their investigation, up until the date that they say they created images of the servers.
4. The DNC claims that the 140 servers were "decommissioned". They have made vague reference to that term meaning that the servers were any of: a) erased, b) overwritten, and/or c) disassembled and/or physically destroyed. They have never provided a statement as the exact current status of each of these decommissioned servers, particularly as it relates to a present capacity to retrieve any data from these servers.
5. The only way to determine the accuracy/reliability of the images created by Crowdstrike, and to confirm the date of their creation, is to compare those images to any data still present on the original 140 servers.
How are we doing so far?
There are 5 guilty pleas, about 20 indictments and an investigation that is moving faster then any other similar investigation.
Its getting nearer the end but real justice and investigations take way more time then some orange guy yelling 'lock her up'.
This is the way the legal system is supposed to work.
Its a massive investigation that must be done correctly.
But don't worry, it looks like Trump will be charged with obstruction and likely some sort of treason like collusion with Putin.
I appreciate your attempt at thoughtful debate.
You obviously have more detailed knowledge of what Crowdstrike may or may not have done. I cannot agree or disagree with you although you may very well be coorect.
But let me ask you this. Lets assume that everything you say is correct. What then follows?
Butler raised potential problems relating to chain of custody in relation to any potential re-visitation to the investigation by the FBI of the so-called DNC hack. You said, in essence, you didn't see how that concept could have any application to such an investigation. As I'm sure you already know, chain of custody not only has to do with "who had it" but also "who had access to it". In relation to this issue, the FBI did not verify the accuracy of computer images that were provided to them by Crowdstrike, because the only way they could have, was at a minimum, to compare the images to original data still stored on the relevant servers. It may not have even been possible for the FBI to have done so, depending on the exact date Crowdstrike provided their report to the FBI, the exact date that each server was "decommissioned", and the exact way in which each server was decommissioned (in some cases, data or partial data may still have been recoverable despite disassembly and/or erasure (depending on the manner of erasure).
In any event, even if Crowdstrike was acting in complete good faith, others had access to the servers they examined BEFORE they created their images (the hackers, at the very least), and may as well have had knowledge of the Crowdstrike investigation. In short, data on the servers may have been manipulated prior to the images being produced, perhaps to intentionally mislead Crowdstrike and/or the FBI. For anyone to have any possible opportunity to determine whether that, in fact, happened, they would need access to the servers in the same state that Crowdstrike had examined them. However, the various state of decommissioning (by Crowdstrike? or someone else on behalf of the DNC), and the fact of access to the servers by persons other than Crowdstrike, means that such an examination may either be completely without probative value, or of such insufficient reliability that findings may not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In Canada, a criminal court may determine not to receive such evidence at all if the the probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudicial effect of such evidence.
That is the application of the "chain of custody" concept that I think Butler was talking about. Framed in this way, can you see the possible evidentiary issues raised by the manner in which these servers were stored (and later decommissioned) , the difficulty of establishing who had access to their data at specific points in time, and the timeline of the events of the investigation?
If the point of your previous post was to construct a series of "facts" which would somehow buttress some argument about chain of custody etc. you have failed and you have missed the point of what the principal is intended to achieve. Butler is clueless. At least you are trying to understand. Again I have no idea whether any of the previous statements of "fact" you have made are correct or not. Even if they are none of them individually or collectively maker your assertion correct as a matter of law. I cannot keep going back and explaining why you are misconstruing the application of the principal but you are.
In any event you are assuming that the FBI and other law enforcement people who have examined this issue ad infinitum are amateurs. They are highly skilled professionals who have access to technology and tools that neither you or I are aware. The bedrock of your argument is that you are able to determine that the investigation was flawed but that the FBI and DOJ were not. When asked by Representative Jordan about why there was no special counsel to investigate HRS, AG Sessions said because there was nothing there. I am paraphrasing of course.
This entire issue has been created by Nunes, Jordan and their gang to provide cover for Trump. Nothing more
You really are impatient, aren't you.
6 months for lying to the FBI for Papadopolous.
Yup. Which means he is done and won't be testifying. And Flynn will soon be next. Manafort some time next week.
Who's left of the list you said would flip and testify? Running out of them.
As to Papadopoulos great they busted a 20 something who drunk bragged and then stupidly lied. Big deal.
