ping
Dems play a card, PDJT plays a card.
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 DNCs 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 communicationsnot 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 monitoredor at least had access that would allow [them] to monitorDNC 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 DNCs 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 DNCs 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 DNCs 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 DNCs 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. Its hearsay because Crowdstrike will be testifying as to what documentary said, instead of letting the server show it, and best evidence, because Crowdstrike wont have the server available, but will instead go by some kind of records that it has.
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?