Posted on 03/05/2019 5:31:31 PM PST by bitt
Things are getting interesting for sure, as Donald Trump fights back against the DNC.
Late Monday night Wikileaks tweeted a full federal court filing the Trump campaign dropped onto the heads of the DNC and Russiagate. In short, it blows the DNC assertions out of the water that it was the victim of a computer hack.
Did Russia hack the DNC? No, according to the filing, which asserts the DNC fabricated the hack.
This story is developing.
Full document here:
(Excerpt) Read more at truepundit.com ...
ping
Dems play a card, PDJT plays a card.
The hacking cry took attention and motive away from the Seth Rich murder.
freeper A:
https://twitter.com/EvolveQuickly/status/1102719191235395584
Page 50- It is particularly telling that, even though the DNC hired “a cybersecurity technology firm” to “investigate the attack” and conduct a “forensic analysis of the DNC’s computer network”, the DNC pleads interception only “upon information and belief”***
{From https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5758381-Memorandum-of-Law-in-Support-of-Motion.html -
~~~~~~~~~
. . . . . . . . . . . . {p. 50} . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . SAC thus alleges only that Russian agents gained access to stored communications—not that they intercepted communications contemporaneously with the communications’ transmission.
The DNC attempts to solve this problem by alleging, “[u]pon information and belief,” that Russian agents “monitored”—or at least had “access” that would “allow [them] to monitor”—DNC communications “in realtime,” “simultaneously with their transmission.” SAC ¶¶ 103, 128, 129. This does not suffice. First, a complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint also must plead “factual content,” and not just “conclusory statements” that parrot “the elements of a cause of action.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The DNC’s allegations simply assert the legal conclusion that the hackers “intercepted” emails, but do not back up that legal conclusion with factual allegations that the hackers obtained any particular communications contemporaneously with their transmission. These allegations thus fail to provide fair notice as to what the DNC’s claim is. The Campaign and the Court have no way to determine whether the DNC has plausibly alleged that communications were intercepted at all, whether the Campaign knew or had reason to know of any such interception, or whether the Campaign made any use of the supposedly intercepted communications.
Second, the DNC’s allegations in all events do not establish that the Campaign “kn[ew] or ha[d] reason to know that the information was obtained through ... interception.” § 2511(1)(d). The SAC nowhere alleges that the Campaign knew or should have known that Russian agents acquired the emails contemporaneously with the emails’ transmission. It is particularly telling that, even though the DNC hired “a cybersecurity technology firm” to “investigate the attack” and conduct a “forensic analysis of the DNC’s computer network” (SAC ¶¶ 110-11), the DNC pleads interception only “[u]pon information and belief” (id. ¶¶ 103, 128, 129). If the DNC cannot tell whether there was an interception, the Campaign surely cannot have known or had reason to know there was an interception.
. . . . . . . . . . . . {END p. 50} . . . . . . . . . . . .
Freeper B:
“They do in fact send a shot across the bow of the DNC.
It will be interesting to see if the DNC claims can survive hearsay and best evidence objections. It’s hearsay because Crowdstrike will be testifying as to what documentary said, instead of letting the server show it, and best evidence, because Crowdstrike won’t have the server available, but will instead go by some kind of records that it has.
What exactly is this and what does it mean?
__ If the DNC cannot tell whether there was an interception, the Campaign surely cannot have known or had reason to know there was an interception.__
sound logic, but the optics of Wiki breaking this is a bit wonky
A liberal hoax. How does that seem familiar....?
Weasel Mueller is the DoJ/’RAT Hack.
Page 56? Woah
Bookmark
Bkmk
Of 50 & 56
Not much.
We take people to court who simply claim they don’t recall or don’t know anything and the case is closed sometime later.
Meanwhile, thousands of illegals are streaming over the southern border every day costing us billions and eventually turning every state blue.
Demorrhoids went all in with a pair of deueces, while Trump holds a royal flush.
DEMS FABRICATED COMPUTER HACK >>
Why?
To cover the betrayal of Hitlery by DNC computer Techies who were Bernie supporters.
Seth Rich was one of them, likely one of the conduits of Hillery e-mails to Wikileaks.
Note that the DNC refused to hand their servers over to FBI forensics after complaining of a Russia hack.They were later wiped clean after a private security Compamy hired by Hitlery made up a bogus Russian hacking report.
*****************************************
James Comey stated it as a matter of fact.
Why didn’t DNC hand over hacked server to FBI?
Yes and I smell a big fat declassification in the near future. Then the charades are over.
I still believe VIPS and Bill Binney that the files were not transferred over the internet. Sure there have been attempts to discredit these intelligence and computer network systems professionals - by journalists at left-wing publications.
You believe who you want to believe, I’ll stick with Binney.
Paging Seth Rich
Seth Rich, being pissed that Bernie Sanders was getting screwed by the DNC, hacked into the server and stole the emails..that is why he was murdered, he was killed by Clinton hired goons, that is what they do
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.