Posted on 04/24/2018 11:46:40 AM PDT by detective
Roger Stone, a former Trump campaign ally, responded to the Democratic National Committee’s Russia collusion lawsuit Monday, telling it to preserve its databases, records and servers for inspection.
“[We] intend to test the basic underlying claims that ‘Russians’ hacked, stole, and disseminated DNC data, rather than the various other plausible scenarios, including internal theft,” wrote Robert Buschel, an attorney representing Mr. Stone, in a letter to the DNC’s lawyers.
Mr. Stone is one of the more than a dozen defendants listed in the suit filed Friday, which says Russian intelligence officials, WikiLeaks and allies of Donald J. Trump worked together to hack the DNC’s emails to elevate Donald Trump during the 2016 election.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The ‘Rats have already “wiped like with a cloth”
Or if they haven’t, nothing will stop them from doing so.
What’s left after almost 2 years, and vendors stomping around the server(s) with combat boots and flamethrower? What a waste of effort! If they want to reconstruct the data, ask Julian Assange, since Seth Rich is unavailable for comment.
Wiping is one thing. Wiping them while making it look like they haven’t been wiped is something else entirely.
It is far greater that one server. It is all emails and correspondence related to the election. It is the deposition of Hillary clinton. She has told everyone that she lost because of the collusion and the Email hack. She must have evidence!!In fact, it is the entire clinton cabal that must now be deposed to see where they got this knowledge of collusion. The DNC server was backed up redundantly. We will need all back ups. We will also be counter suing for sanctions and attorney fees for violation of Rule 11 on finding this is a non meritorious abuse of judicial process. We are going to have FUN!!
Ahh, that ship sailed a LONG time ago.
One of the many, many reasons the DNC delays things.
They were almost certainly wiped 2 years ago.
Of course NSA, Wikileaks or others have the information and will release the information at the appropriate time.
You may be able to do a compare - what the NSA has and what the DNC has and build an obstruction case.
Post the material on 4chan, letting the masses feast on the data.
Won’t the transfer speeds of the files prove the emails were copied on site rather than hacked across the web, whichever web that might be?
Schweizer explained the “deep ties” the Clintons have to Russia, specifically how in 2010 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale and transfer of 20% of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government ...”
___________________________________________________________
As part of just-inaugurated President Obama’s new foreign policy to improve relations between the United States and Russia, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in March 2009. Meeting in her hotel’s Salon Panorama in Geneva, she presented him with a small gift box containing a bright red button symbolizing the Obama administration’s desire to “reset” the relationship between the two governments.
Thus began an effort to transfer American technology to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own “Silicon Valley,” called Skolkovo.
In a report released in late July by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) entitled From Russia With Money, authors Stephen Bannon and Peter Schweitzer reviewed the long sordid history of the technology transfer from companies such as Google, Intel, and Cisco of hi-tech technology with useful military applications.
The report quoted warnings from the FBI and the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth that the transfer would work against American interests. Warned the U.S. Army:
[The “reset” would serve as] a vehicle for world-wide technology transfers to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.
It was clearly a “quid pro quo” arrangement: 17 of the 28 companies involved in the technology transfer gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation or to Bill Clinton for giving some speeches.
When those authors, both of whom are affiliated with Breitbart News, summed up their conclusions, one question remained: “The GAI investigative report says it’s unclear how much, if any, money [John] Podesta made.” Podesta, having served the Clintons for years, first as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and then as counselor to President Obama and finally as Hillary’s campaign chairman, deserved a payoff.
But it wasn’t clear until the latest batch of e-mails provided by WikiLeaks went public last week that Americans now know. For his efforts Podesta received thousands of shares of common and preferred stock in one of the companies involved in the transfer. The fact came to light when WikiLeaks published e-mails Podesta sent to the company ordering it to transfer his shares to a shell corporation he had created a month earlier.
The e-mails included a letter Podesta wrote to the corporate secretary of that company instructing him to retitle 33,693 shares of preferred stock to Leonidio Holdings, LLC, a corporation that Podesta (or one of his staff) created using a Corporation Service Company to hide the shares from public view.
The company that gave Podesta the stock shares, Joule Unlimited, claims to be a producer of “alternative” energy technology that will eventually be able to produce energy that will be competitive with oil priced at $50 a barrel. It was a recipient of millions of Putin’s rubles as one of the gang of companies working to transfer American technology to Russia, one of America’s enemies.
As Schweizer told the New York Post in an interview in July:
The Clintons, they get their donations and speaking fees in the millions of dollars. The Russians get access to advanced US technology. The tech companies get special access to the Russian market and workforce….
All I ask is that people look at the money. Who made the deals, who benefited from the deals?
Thanks to WikiLeaks the “people” now know the name of at least one of those who participated in the deals and how he benefited from them: John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager.
_______________________________________________________________________
The ‘Rats have already “wiped like with a cloth”
Or if they haven’t, nothing will stop them from doing so.
I am not a lawyer but I would think if they go to court and claimed the dog ate the evidence, the counter suit will win.
Are these people insane for going down this road?
.
That would by my guess.
Self fornication to the max.
And now they get to 'preserve', like by soaking in a salt bath.
“Your honor, the plaintiff has sworn that all related emails from the plaintiff have been surrendered. We have found many emails from the computer of Debbie Wasserman Schultz to and from the DNC that were not submitted as evidence.”
Spoliation is at play, I suspect.
But, sadly, the courts lately don’t seem at all interested in doing their job when it comes to the Democrat Party.
The ‘Rats are too powerful, too pervasive, and too ruthless. And also sadly, much of the court system is run by Democrat Party hacks.
From CNBC.com, July 7, 2016...
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ..."
Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That’s what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right[]
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.
But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
Backup link:
____________________________________
The idea that it took colousion to hack their server is absurd. One techy could likely hack it in a day by himself. Morons on display
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.