Mueller’s Latest Indictment Ignores Evidence In The Public Domain

originally posted by: MteWamp
a reply to: Xcathdra

Damn, what an OP. It helps a lot to have this much all in one place. Thanks for putting in the effort.

I'll have to wait until tomorrow to dive in to it. It'll help pass the time while we wait for the fat lady to sing.

The “fat lady” will not sing not even one note, even though she knows she can even hit ALL the notes, for fear of retribution!

Great thread. S+F

On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.

On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.

On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

www.thenation.com...

Here is a good related thread from around that time, "Strangeness in Crowdstrikes findings on Russian Hack

From the op:

How likely is it that all the malware attributed to Fancy Bear was compiled in the period from ten days prior to CrowdStrike’s visit in early May 2016 to five days after?

...

The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance.

Fancy Frauds, Bogus Bears & Malware Mimicry?!

Things that make you go hmmmm...

a reply to: Xcathdra

What scandal is bigger than this??? None

No wonder Muellers investigation continues on with no end in sight... so he can make timely “news”/indictments to cover bigger stories and distract from the damning truth. He should be fired after Trump meets with Putin, or this “investigation” might last another 6 years!!!

Great work ATS!!! (Well, some of ATS)

a reply to: xBWOMPx

If America were to be free like it use to be

What time period specifically would that have been?
Year/ date?

a reply to: six67seven

Hillary has been investigated many times over many years. And people are now calling for even more.

The watergate investigation went on for over two years. And only ended because nixion resigned.

Investigations take time.

We should let the trump and hillary investigations take as much time as they need to get at the truth.

Its no coincidence thay these indictments are announced after Peter "insurance policy" Strzok and rught before Trumps Russia visit. The only purpose of the special counsel is to undermine and set up an impeachment of Trump. All if of these intelligence based lies remind me of the whole WMD deception. I think they are actually trying to start a war with Russia. Just listen to some if the rhetoric coming from the democrats. These people have no regard for thus country. People who want to cheerlead all of this because they hate Trumo better be careful of what they wish for.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: xBWOMPx

If America were to be free like it use to be

What time period specifically would that have been?
Year/ date?

Is this where i say a time in the past when there were no federal income tax and your home was actually yours and you come back with a "nah uhh, there was slavery, or the Indians were murdered or something to totally contradict my whole "When America was free" deal? Because ill tell you right now, America has become exactly what our forefathers fought to escape. Anywho, you have your opinion, hopefully you paid attention and read your text books in history class, which hold more value then google these days. But you should know when

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thankyou for defining these hollow indictments in a way that's logical and easy to understand!

EASY S&F!

a reply to: Xcathdra

How do you indict someone for hacking when the supposedly hacked servers were never examined by the fib or Don for evidence of hacking?

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Xcathdra

How do you indict someone for hacking when the supposedly hacked servers were never examined by the fib or Don for evidence of hacking?

Where is the “hard” evidence?

It must be presented

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Xcathdra

How do you indict someone for hacking when the supposedly hacked servers were never examined by the fib or Don for evidence of hacking?

There is a reason they say a "grand jury will indict a ham sandwich".

Grand Jury's are run by the prospecting attorney. People subpoenaed to appear before one do not have a right to have their lawyers present. There is no ability to "object" to questions or the way questions are phrased by the prosecutor. The prosecutor controls what witnesses appear and controls the line of questioning. They also control the evidence that is introduced.

There is a lot more to it but you get the idea on how a person can obtain an indictment without begin required to present all of the facts. Since this wont see the inside of a courtroom the lie about Russia hacking the DNC server wont be challenged in a legal setting.

We already witnessed that maneuver blowing up in Mueller's face when the first batch of russians / russian companies were indicted. When some of the russians retained a lawyer and challenged the indictments it took the SC off guard. They were unprepared in the initial hearings and thus far have failed to comply with more than 70 requests for evidence under discovery motions. When the SC finally complied they turned over thousands of the russian version of facebook pages untranslated.

The SC didnt even know what the messages contained but they used them to get the indictment. The SC tried to get the judge to grant a delay and he refused when the defendants objected. They have a right to a speedy trial and the judge agreed with their lawyer. They also pointed out onme of the russian companies indicted didnt even exist at the times the SC claimed in the indictments.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think this is one of the best things that's happened in the past decade. I don't recall hearing about any other President knocking off insiders gone wild.

originally posted by: KarmasBiatch
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think this is one of the best thing that's happened in the past decade. I don't recall hearing about any other President knocking off insiders gone wild.

I chalk it up to the American people electing a business leader and not a career politician. Given Trump funded his own campaign he is not beholden to special interest groups. He is running the executive branch like a business and it is working great imo.

The only way ther left gets rid of Trump is either by fake charges or by assassination. If the fake charges dont work I honestly, and sadly, expect an attempt on his life. His actions are exposing a lot of powerful people and their corruption. If AG Sessions is actually doing his job like some people claim (hes not being overt about it and wants airtight cases against these people) then the next 6 years should be interesting.

Something I think would be fun. Putin makes the accused diplomats and stations them in Washington. They show up in court and contest the indictments demanding full disclosure. Then just for the hell of it they plead gulity and submit to the court the contents of the DNC server they hacked while RT puts it up on the web as well. Then maybe we can figure out what was so damming that the actual DNC server disappeared while in storage.

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Xcathdra

How do you indict someone for hacking when the supposedly hacked servers were never examined by the fib or Don for evidence of hacking?

Where is the “hard” evidence?

It must be presented

Dollars to donuts Mueller introduced the crowdstrike conclusions for the hacking portion. I would also wager at no point did he raise any issues with crowdstrike, specifically the fact they have had to retract their statements when they discovered the method they used was flawed.

a reply to: ntech

Certainly an option however they wont have any type of diplomatic immunity so it would be a gamble that could p[lace them in prison for decades.

For those unaware when a person is assigned to be a diplomat the receiving country must accept the person as an ambassador etc. If the receiving country doesnt accept then the person does not get any type of diplomatic status and must leave the country.

Great work X.

Also note that I posted in another thread that the data transferred off the DNC server was at a speed of 20-25 megabytes per second. Far too fast to have been removed by an internet connection even a T1 or T3 in the amount of time logged ~40-45 seconds IIRC from FireEye's analysis. The data was removed by a USB device, probably a solid state device. It was an inside job, no doubt about it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: elementalgrove

He did.

I love that you gloss over the fact that eight other agencies approved the transaction. Were they all bribed as well or were they just treasonous folk who gave our uranium to Russia?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: elementalgrove

He did.

If you are going to post a meme, at least try to be correct about the details - ZERO NADA NONE of the US Uranium has/will/or ever will be given to Russia. This has been gone over adnauseam. For someone that posts 9000 times a day on ATS you should be aware of this fact. While you are at it, why not throw up some Pizzagate memes, because they are just as relevant and accurate.