Replies

I agree with you.

There seems to be two semi-parallel but not necessarily convergent tales being told. One; that the Russians hacked the DNC server; and I completely agree, this is an excellent point for Stone’s defense: For the FBI to assert this against Stone; this is in effect hearsay, because the not only did the FBI never examine the DNC server(s), they were DENIED permission to do so. Of course, it’s in no way obstruction for the DNC to allow the FBI to examine their server. That would be like calling the cops to report a break-in at your house, and when they show up at your door to examine the premises and collect evidence, you don’t allow them in.

And two: That the Russians “interfered” or “meddled” with the 2016 election. Nobody denies the Russians may have bought a few hundred grand in misleading or trollish Twitter and Facebook posts and nobody believes that those posts changed even a single vote.

But the FBI is trying to create a nexus; of Russian meddling AND the release of HRC emails....but those emails were (perhaps some were) on the DNC server but they would have been primarily on HER private server. Yet Stone is being accused of some activity relating to the hack of the DNC server, more accurately his knowledge of when and by whom said hack was executed.

So I myself do not see (and have never seen) the connection and correlation of these two claims, but I am shallow and superficial in that way. It has always seemed to me there was a hack of the DNC server and a hack of HRC’s server but they are being treated as the same machine when clearly they were not.

If the media had the slightest bit of curiosity, they would already know that CrowdStrike is funded by TIM GEITHNER, Google Capital, And Pytor Omidyar’s Accel, with folks like Micheal Eisner and Chelsea Clinton getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on the board.

But people n the media LIKE those cushy, high-paying do almost nothing jobs, and they do not dare to risk them.

The whole CrowdStrike deal was a crony setup/coverup, from the beginning.

William Binney is the former Technical Director of the NSA, and Larry Johnson is a former CIA counterterrorism analyst.

Binney and Johnson found that almost all of the emails published by Wikileaks have what’s called a FAT file marker on them. A FAT file transfer system puts a “time stamp” on documents or emails, and the FAT system automatically rounds that time stamp up to the nearest even number: 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. About 35,813 of the total 44,053 DNC emails published by Wikileaks have a FAT marker on them.

The DNC emails published by Wikileaks were transferred at 49.1 megabytes per second, from unknown point A to unknown point B. (If the DNC had allowed the FBI to analyze its servers after it was “hacked,” there would be no “unknowns” – we would know exactly when, where and how the emails were transferred off of that server.) Yet the fastest speed that you can transfer data from New Jersey to anywhere in Europe – including Russia – is only 12 megabytes per second. So, the 49.1 megabytes-per-second transfer speed on the emails is very telling. Why? Because there is one way to transfer data that fast. In fact, that’s the exact speed that data travels when you load it onto… a thumb drive.

That thumb drive then made its way to Wikileaks and the emails ended up on the internet. A defense attorney would have a field day with that information if Robert Mueller tried to prosecute one of the Russians he’s accused of “remotely hacking” the DNC servers. Conclusion the Trump campaign couldn’t have colluded with the Russians to hack the DNC emails. Because the DNC was never hacked