Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Whenifhow; null and void; aragorn; EnigmaticAnomaly; kalee; Kale; 2ndDivisionVet; azishot; ...

ping


2 posted on 03/05/2019 5:32:26 PM PST by bitt (Is the PAIN coming???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bitt

Dems play a card, PDJT plays a card.


3 posted on 03/05/2019 5:34:00 PM PST by Steely Tom ([Seth Rich] == [the Democrat's John Dean])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Bob Ireland; Defiant

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.


5 posted on 03/05/2019 5:35:37 PM PST by bitt (Is the PAIN coming???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: bitt

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?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/388507-trump-why-didnt-dnc-hand-over-hacked-server-to-fbi


16 posted on 03/05/2019 6:09:45 PM PST by Candor7 ((Obama Fascism)http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson