• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Why didn’t Mueller investigate Seth Rich?

All I have to see is the name Seth Rich and the title of your thread to know you are a despicable piece of shit!

It's not "provocative" to try to start a thread about the murder of an innocent young man. whose name and family have been dragged the RW muck of their LIES for years. It has been investigated and nothing found. Just RW lies and BS that Moonz is so happy to share.

There's no excuse for this.

You are below contempt!
 
Moonz just wants everyone to be as miserable as he is. Don’t fall for it.
 
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?

FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?

AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.

DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?

AGENT: (cough)…. (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.

DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where the server was examined?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don’t run the FBI Laboratries?

AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.

DEF ATT: Well I don’t understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in FBI laboratories?

AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.

(silence)

DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?

AGENT: Uh….. no.

DEF ATT: They didn’t examine them on site?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?

AGENT: Well, uh….. the FBI did not examine them?

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers?

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually examined the computer hardware?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?

AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.

DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?

AGENT: We didn’t receive the report directly from Crowdstrike?

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike?

DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?

AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.

DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their servers?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?

AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike?

DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?

AGENT: I don’t know.

DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?

AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.

DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?

AGENT: No, I cannot.

DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: I don’t understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?

AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Did you lose it?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?

AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report?

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn’t get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?

AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.

DEF ATT: A draft copy?

AGENT: Yes.

DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why not?

AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.

PRESIDING JUDGE: I’m sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.
 
That transcript reads pretty poorly. I will say that it is not unusual for labs to outsource work because of ability or time constraints. When I get a report from an accredited lab, i do not get all of the technical data. I get a report or a copy of a report. We then issue part of their report inside of our report. That being said, a case of this magnitude might be better handled all in house unless absolutely necessary.
 
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?

FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?

AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.

DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?

AGENT: (cough)…. (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.

DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where the server was examined?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don’t run the FBI Laboratries?

AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.

DEF ATT: Well I don’t understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in FBI laboratories?

AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.

(silence)

DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?

AGENT: Uh….. no.

DEF ATT: They didn’t examine them on site?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?

AGENT: Well, uh….. the FBI did not examine them?

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers?

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually examined the computer hardware?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?

AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.

DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?

AGENT: We didn’t receive the report directly from Crowdstrike?

DEF ATT: What?

AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike?

DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?

AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.

DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their servers?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?

AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike?

DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?

AGENT: I don’t know.

DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?

AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.

DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?

AGENT: No, I cannot.

DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: I don’t understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?

AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.

DEF ATT: Did you lose it?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?

AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report?

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn’t get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?

AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.

DEF ATT: A draft copy?

AGENT: Yes.

DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?

AGENT: No.

DEF ATT: Why not?

AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.

DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is that correct?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?

AGENT: That is correct.

DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.

PRESIDING JUDGE: I’m sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.

When the meds leaves you impotent, you have to jerk off to QAnon fanfic.
 
I am so confused by this? I thought the FBI deep state was in the tank for Hillary and was spying on Trump under orders from Obama...why wouldn’t the DNC just hand over the servers to the FBI who were secretly working on behalf on the Democratic Party? It almost doesn’t make sense.
 
I am so confused by this? I thought the FBI deep state was in the tank for Hillary and was spying on Trump under orders from Obama...why wouldn’t the DNC just hand over the servers to the FBI who were secretly working on behalf on the Democratic Party? It almost doesn’t make sense.

yeah, it does; the leak of documents to Wikileaks from the DNC computers was not by the Russians but someone else, but Hillary and the Dems needed to blame Russia so that their deep state allies and the corrupt leadership of the Obama administration could spy on the Trump campaign (to help Hillary), so the Dems were the source for the "story" that Russia hacked the DNC computers and that "story" was never independently conformed by the FBI leadership, who simply rubber stamped it without ever examining the DNC computers themselves

of the possible sources for the leak of the documents, the Russians are possibly the least likely

indeed, none of the different foreign government agencies that probably hacked the DNC were likely the source for Wikileaks

the leaker was probably an insider, but bringing that to light, or the likelihood that half of the world had hacked Hillary, would interfere in the hoax Russia narrative necessary to spy on the Trump campaign
 
yeah, it does; the leak of documents to Wikileaks from the DNC computers was not by the Russians but someone else, but Hillary and the Dems needed to blame Russia so that their deep state allies and the corrupt leadership of the Obama administration could spy on the Trump campaign (to help Hillary), so the Dems were the source for the "story" that Russia hacked the DNC computers and that "story" was never independently conformed by the FBI leadership, who simply rubber stamped it without ever examining the DNC computers themselves

of the possible sources for the leak of the documents, the Russians are possibly the least likely

indeed, none of the different foreign government agencies that probably hacked the DNC were likely the source for Wikileaks

the leaker was probably an insider, but bringing that to light, or the likelihood that half of the world had hacked Hillary, would interfere in the hoax Russia narrative necessary to spy on the Trump campaign

Link?
 
yeah, it does; the leak of documents to Wikileaks from the DNC computers was not by the Russians but someone else, but Hillary and the Dems needed to blame Russia so that their deep state allies and the corrupt leadership of the Obama administration could spy on the Trump campaign (to help Hillary), so the Dems were the source for the "story" that Russia hacked the DNC computers and that "story" was never independently conformed by the FBI leadership, who simply rubber stamped it without ever examining the DNC computers themselves

of the possible sources for the leak of the documents, the Russians are possibly the least likely

indeed, none of the different foreign government agencies that probably hacked the DNC were likely the source for Wikileaks

the leaker was probably an insider, but bringing that to light, or the likelihood that half of the world had hacked Hillary, would interfere in the hoax Russia narrative necessary to spy on the Trump campaign

Found in Hillary's emails:

BirdsAren%E2%80%99tReal%E2%80%9DPrototype%E2%80%9D.jpg
 
yeah, it does; the leak of documents to Wikileaks from the DNC computers was not by the Russians but someone else, but Hillary and the Dems needed to blame Russia so that their deep state allies and the corrupt leadership of the Obama administration could spy on the Trump campaign (to help Hillary), so the Dems were the source for the "story" that Russia hacked the DNC computers and that "story" was never independently conformed by the FBI leadership, who simply rubber stamped it without ever examining the DNC computers themselves

of the possible sources for the leak of the documents, the Russians are possibly the least likely

indeed, none of the different foreign government agencies that probably hacked the DNC were likely the source for Wikileaks

the leaker was probably an insider, but bringing that to light, or the likelihood that half of the world had hacked Hillary, would interfere in the hoax Russia narrative necessary to spy on the Trump campaign

So why didn’t Obummer just have the FBI “independently conform [sic]” the Russia story by having them examine the servers and writing a report that said the Russians did it, regardless of the results. Out sourcing this to a third party contractor just leaves the whole story open to questions. Seems like this deep state is not very deep and not very smart.
 
So why didn’t Obummer just have the FBI “independently conform [sic]” the Russia story by having them examine the servers and writing a report that said the Russians did it, regardless of the results. Out sourcing this to a third party contractor just leaves the whole story open to questions. Seems like this deep state is not very deep and not very smart.

"Seems like this deep state is not very deep and not very smart." That's the contradiction that conservatives are going to have a difficult time explaining away if they really try to investigate all of this. To listen to many right-wingers, the deep state is everywhere, seemingly knows everything, and is like SPECTRE or Darth Sidious in its power and reach and influence. OTOH, they couldn't elect their chosen one, Hillary, to the Presidency, and couldn't even publicize the information that the FBI was investigating Trump for collusion before the election. Apparently, the deep state is both a deadly threat to our democracy and bumbling three stooges who can't even leak favorable information at the right time. Awful hard to be both. But, BENGHAZI!!! Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch at an airport!!! Obama wore a tan suit once!!! LEFT WING/DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY!!!
 
Trump openly flouts the law and corruptly politicizes the DOJ.





“But Obama”, say demented folks.
 
Back
Top