Guccifer 2.0 - Game Over

The playboy saga did occur only nowadays not before the elections.

 

LOL. You’re done.

 

And so far that "agreement" has been denied by Trump et.al. Its part of a long list of denials about that particular meeting and subsequent ones that have turned out to be lies.

Not that consistent patterns of behavior including Trump's active participation in other conspiracies to protect himself, is any indication of guilt in this regard.

But since the lies keep getting exposed and the story keeps changing, I guess we'll just have to see if in the end there is enough corroborating or exculpatory evidence to determine guilt.

 

Has he made those statements under oath? We all know lying to the public isn't a crime.

Or else every damn conspiracy nutter on the planet would be guilty of one.

I do admire your logical contortion ability.

Seems you think its the FBI's duty to measure the height of the sky, because Chicken Little said it was falling.

Excellent try tho.

 

Did you not read the part about the intelligence agencies refusing to question him?

BTW, evidence is the same before and after sworn testimony.

 

Much like nobody bothered to question anyone regarding Pizzagate. Wild arsed accusations, including hearsay of a woodland handoff? Yep, that is a real promising lead.

And sometimes the testimony is evidence of perjury.

 

Start a thread if you want to discuss that

 

Just making an obvious comparison of the level of wild arse accusations you are trying to peddle.

 

Discuss the topic

 

I was. Can't help it if you can't grasp the concept of allegory in an argument.

 

That's the point I was making. He would make a statement to an official investigator in a jiffy if he could. But neither Mueller nor the FBI - nor anyone else - has even tried to contact him and he is as frustrated as hell about that. This lack of proper due diligence investigation of the only witness clearly points out a clear political prejudice on the part of investigators.

Add to this the fact that the actual physical prima facia evidence (the DNS hard drives) also weren't taken into custody or subjected to federal forensic scrutiny and only one conclusion is possible:

What we're watching is a scripted political drama aimed at deflecting attention away from the content of the DNC / Podesta emails and to fully energise the needed enemy (Russia) to keep the military-intelligence-industrial complex in control and in clover.

I don't and yet here you are trying to gull everybody into thinking that a politicised investigation should be accepted as the real thing when it very clearly isn't.

[quote Seems you think its the FBI's duty to measure the height of the sky, because Chicken Little said it was falling.[/quote]

Nope, I would just like to see them conduct a proper criminal investigation following long established law enforcement procedure. They have a witness ready to provide testimony at least. The DNC servers have curiously gone missing.

No suprises there.

 

NONSENSE. only one conclusion possible?

It seems you are fixated on the fbi not having physical access to the actual server, as if the hardware might have some additional digital fingerprints that a memory dump and disk image wouldn't contain.

It also seems that you are clueless about how the underlying internet infrastructure functions. Simple things like how packet switching works and how much underlying transmission data it generates.

Sure thing. I have no desire to gull everybody or anybody, that appears to be your job.

They are conducting a proper criminal investigation. And according to long established law enforcement digital forensic procedures, a complete mirror/dump using approved methodolgies is SOP.

Course you knew that too, didn't you?

 

As I keep saying, getting a disc image from a private company that represents the interests of their client - the DNC - is like a mafia don tasking his attorney to supply the evidence against him to the authorities. The concept is ridiculous and nonsensical in the extreme.

The FBI should've taken charge of the DNC servers as they would a firearm in a murder case (before they conveniently disappeared - no surprises there, eh).

The bottom line is there is no excuse for:

a) the FBI being excluded by the DNC to get direct access to their servers out the outset. This is more than telling and suggests prejudice in manufacturing the outcome.

b) the FBI didn't get a court order to force possession is likewise telling and again clearly suggests prejudice. A crime was committed and the Feds conveniently stood twiddling their thumbs and took no action.

c) there remains a primary witness who has stated on the record that he took possession of a package that contained both the DNC and Podesta emails and turned them over to Wikileaks - and that this formed the data basis for Wikileaks revelations - but his statement has been ignored in the same way that the FBI ignored access to the servers.

The entire background is a no brainer; the whole thing was a fixed roulette wheel.









They are conducting a proper criminal investigation. And according to long established law enforcement digital forensic procedures, a complete mirror/dump using approved methodolgies is SOP.

Course you knew that too, didn't you?[/QUOTE]

 

It does suggest that. One is left wondering whether Crowdstrike could somehow tamper with the hard drive before '
"imaging" it for the FBI, or why the FBI didn't "image" the hard drive themselves.

This seems suspicious too, as though there was concern over what would be found, whether there could be evidence it was an inside job.

The contention that since this witness has not been formally deposed under oath his testimony is somehow invalid, also seems disingenous, he could be formally deposed, but the FBI isn't interested (since Mueller's theory -a Russian hack, contradicts this witness' testimony).

 

Start a thread for your allegory

 

Nonsense. But no worries, I understand how it has to be a conspiracy and the russians are completely innocent and the entire US and NATO intell communities are totally in cahoots to blame russia.

Yep and its all because the FBI did not gain physical access to the server despite. It seems you are now implying that somehow the entire access and communications history of the server was deliberately altered to cover the tracks of whoever, downloaded the information from the server unto a USB and then faked to the upload of sophisticated russian spyware. AND to do this without leaving any trace.

Course the analysis will become evidence in the various trails that may take place. That means that all of that forensic digital data will be gone thru with a fine tooth comb by the defense.

Meanwhile, the evidence that it was the russians is overwhelming even without the server. Trump has already admitted to attempting to conspire with a hostile foreign government and just outted his son for making false statements.

Yep keep harping. It'll get you nowhere, but might earn you a red star or two from Vlad and the gang.

 

the allegory ain't the subject. I believe that is taught in basic elementary school grammar and comprehension.

 

Yes, but I think the defense could credibly demand access to the actual DNC hard drive -as well as its 'imaged' copy, and that then they'd compare the two, and naturally embarrass the FBI about the differences.

 

You don't know what you are talking about. Never mind.

 

So stop talking about it and get back to the subject.

 

You showed him

 

Didn't try to. I was passing judgement.

 

Giggles

 

I'm told the 'imaged' hard drive is an identical reproduction of the actual hard drive 'imaged', so I'd expect they'd be identical (everyone would). The 'imaging' of the hard drive is supposedly to enable the hard drive's continued use while it's 'image' is being forensically examined. Examining the hard drive (or its 'image') would enable experts to determine if data on the drive had been hacked, when and how, with what frequency, maybe from where.

Presumably the 'imaged' hard drive provided by Crowdstrike was examined already and revealed to have had specific data (email contents) hacked from Russia by the GRU. However. there are conflicting reports relating to the rate of data transfer which indicate to some that the data was offloaded more quickly than could be done remotely from Russia, also that the data transfers took place during ordinary business hours at the drive's location.

All of this should be confirmed examining the 'imaged' drive's source, the actual drive that was replicated, any difference would suspicious. I don't know how sophisticated the forensic analysis can be, but I'd expect any deletions or changes prior to 'imaging' would be recorded on the original drive.

The use of an 'imaged' drive instead of the original could be to enable continued use of the original, but it also could be to conceal deletions or changes before 'imaging'. It is not inconceivable Crowdstrike was concerned the rates of purportedly remotely hacked data transfer indicated an inside job which contradicted their client's claim of Russian involvement and that to prevent the FBI from confirming an inside job, Crowdstrike deleted or changed the hard drive before 'imaging' it.

The only way to know is by comparing the original to its 'image' and looking closely at what was done to the original before it was 'imaged'.

Any concerns over the inability of the DNC to continue using their hard drive can be dispatched by 'imaging it so they can use the copy while the original is examined. Which leads to my question; why wasn't the FBI given the actual original and the DNC provided with the 'imaged' drive to continue operations in the first place?

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/...one-year-after-vips-showed-a-leak-not-a-hack/