Trump goes Mob Boss

[Mountain Man]

The Conservative Treehouse was, is, and will continue to be a propaganda outlet; it's not worth clicking through. James Comey testified back in March 2017 that the FBI received the forensic image files of the DNC servers, which means it was able to perform its own analysis.

--Sam

Nice genetic fallacy, but you're not arguing against sundance, you're arguing against a court filing submitted by the FBI in which they admit that they were never given access to anything but a redacted draft report provided by CrowdStrike.

crowdstrike-1.jpg
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...hacking-claim/

It's important to understand the background. This filing was in response to Roger Stone's defense team asking the government to provide direct evidence proving that Russia hacked the DNC servers, saying:

The first step in any computer fraud case is to encase and image the "attacked" computer ... CrowdStrike failed to encase the subject computers.

[...]

First, Stone will demonstrate that the Government's proposition is untrue. This assumption was not based upon a government investigation disclosed to the defense; rather, it was based upon CrowdStrike's private investigation of the respective servers of another private organization. Second, it appears those servers have not been encased and consequently, its data not properly preserved. The proper preservation is critical in order for it to be admissible in court.

https://www.usatoday.com/documents/5996628-Suppress/

In its response, the FBI flat out admits that "the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted."

So no data gathered directly from the servers. No copies of the server images. No complete and unredacted report from CrowdStrike.

As for Comey, I can find nothing saying that he testified that the FBI was given forensic images of the servers for analysis. The only statement I can find from him is from January 2017 in which he says the DNC wouldn't let them anywhere near the servers and told them to talk to CrowdStrike.

"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw."

So I ask again, what was the DNC trying to hide?

[rogue06]

I utterly refuse to even look at any and every thing that might contradict my cherished belief.

--Sam

FIFY n/c

[Sam]

Reading legal briefs is normally somewhat difficult but in this case, it's not: Stone is seeking access to redacted portions of Crowdstrike draft reports and the government says they're not discoverable. Nowhere does the government state that the draft reports are the only information it received. And since Stone isn't asking for the forensic images, it's not something the DOJ needs to mention in a court filing concerning Stone's request for materials.

So if The Conservative Treehouse is trying to spin that court filing into another whopper, you've got another Sean Davis experience on your hands again. As usual.

--Sam

Nice genetic fallacy, but you're not arguing against sundance, you're arguing against a court filing submitted by the FBI in which they admit that they were never given access to anything but a redacted draft report provided by CrowdStrike.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40028[/ATTACH]
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...hacking-claim/

It's important to understand the background. This filing was in response to Roger Stone's defense team asking the government to provide direct evidence proving that Russia hacked the DNC servers, saying:

The first step in any computer fraud case is to encase and image the "attacked" computer ... CrowdStrike failed to encase the subject computers.

[...]

First, Stone will demonstrate that the Government's proposition is untrue. This assumption was not based upon a government investigation disclosed to the defense; rather, it was based upon CrowdStrike's private investigation of the respective servers of another private organization. Second, it appears those servers have not been encased and consequently, its data not properly preserved. The proper preservation is critical in order for it to be admissible in court.

https://www.usatoday.com/documents/5996628-Suppress/

In its response, the FBI flat out admits that "the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks; the material was provided to the government by counsel for the DNC with the remediation information redacted."

So no data gathered directly from the servers. No copies of the server images. No complete and unredacted report from CrowdStrike.

As for Comey, I can find nothing saying that he testified that the FBI was given forensic images of the servers for analysis. The only statement I can find from him is from January 2017 in which he says the DNC wouldn't let them anywhere near the servers and told them to talk to CrowdStrike.

"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw."

So I ask again, what was the DNC trying to hide?

[Sam]

FIFY n/c

Consider, Rogue, whether any of this dreck from The Conservative Treehouse, Breitbart, The Federalist, or Fox would approach anything near the empirical rigor we used to advocate and demand on NatSci. You've gone far afield and lost that essential anchor. Always time to come back 'round.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Consider, Rogue, whether any of this dreck from The Conservative Treehouse, Breitbart, The Federalist, or Fox would approach anything near the empirical rigor we used to advocate and demand on NatSci. You've gone far afield and lost that essential anchor. Always time to come back 'round.

--Sam

I could say the same thing about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times... and yet you have no problem whatsoever unquestioningly accepting any and every thing they claim and mindlessly regurgitating it as long as it fits into your "Orange man evil" narrative.

[lilpixieofterror]

Consider, Rogue, whether any of this dreck from The Conservative Treehouse, Breitbart, The Federalist, or Fox would approach anything near the empirical rigor we used to advocate and demand on NatSci. You've gone far afield and lost that essential anchor. Always time to come back 'round.

--Sam

[oxmixmudd]

I could say the same thing about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times... and yet you have no problem whatsoever unquestioningly accepting any and every thing they claim and mindlessly regurgitating it as long as it fits into your "Orange man evil" narrative.

There is no real comparison. The rags mentioned by sam have little to no actual journalistic purpose. Excepting Fox, they exist simply for no other purpose than to justify a specific ideological position.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

There is no real comparison. The rags mentioned by sam have little to no actual journalistic purpose. They exist simply for no other purpose than to justify a specific ideological position.

Jim

Is that before or after the MSM gets caught publishing fake news pieces that shows their just the propaganda arm of the democrat party?

Yet again, the emperor has no cloths.

[rogue06]

It is a knee jerk response on the part of the MSM to immediately leap into any story that can be used to attack Trump or his Administration without bothering to check on its veracity.

Look at how they went after the Covington kids because they were wearing MAGA hats.

A more recent example is how they unquestioningly covered the story last week in which a black girl was supposedly held down by three white boys who forcibly cut her dreadlocks. The fact that it took place at a school where Karen Pence (wife of VP Mike Pence) occasionally works as a substitute teacher allowed them to continuously link it to the Trump Administration and use it as evidence that Trump has led to a rise in racist activity^[1].

The only problem is, like with so many of these type stories, it was a hoax. Completely made up. Fake news.

So far only a hand full of those that raced to report the false story have issued any sort of retraction.



1 To her credit CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King, reacting to the mindless piling on by her colleagues, jumped in to emphasize that "this has nothing to do with Karen Pence."

[lilpixieofterror]

It is a knee jerk response on the part of the MSM to immediately leap into any story that can be used to attack Trump or his Administration without bothering to check on its veracity.

Look at how they went after the Covington kids because they were wearing MAGA hats.

A more recent example is how they unquestioningly covered the story last week in which a black girl was supposedly held down by three white boys who forcibly cut her dreadlocks. The fact that it took place at a school where Karen Pence (wife of VP Mike Pence) occasionally works as a substitute teacher allowed them to continuously link it to the Trump Administration and use it as evidence that Trump has led to a rise in racist activity^[1].

The only problem is, like with so many of these type stories, it was a hoax. Completely made up. Fake news.

So far only a hand full of those that raced to report the false story have issued any sort of retraction.



1 To her credit CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King, reacting to the mindless piling on by her colleagues, jumped in to emphasize that "this has nothing to do with Karen Pence."

[rogue06]

There is no real comparison. The rags mentioned by sam have little to no actual journalistic purpose. Excepting Fox, they exist simply for no other purpose than to justify a specific ideological position.

Jim

At least since 2016 the exact same thing can be said about the sources that y'all unquestioningly and uncritically cite.

[Mountain Man]

Reading legal briefs is normally somewhat difficult but in this case, it's not: Stone is seeking access to redacted portions of Crowdstrike draft reports and the government says they're not discoverable. Nowhere does the government state that the draft reports are the only information it received. And since Stone isn't asking for the forensic images, it's not something the DOJ needs to mention in a court filing concerning Stone's request for materials.

So if The Conservative Treehouse is trying to spin that court filing into another whopper, you've got another Sean Davis experience on your hands again. As usual.

--Sam

Give me a moment to look over the sources you provided to support you claims...

Oh, wait, you didn't provide any. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it, huh?

The FBI didn't say the information was "not discoverable", they flatly said that they don't have access to the information that is being requested. And Comey is on record saying that the FBI was dependent on CrowdStrike to "share with us what they saw".

Which is to say that to this day, nobody in any of our law enforcement agencies was ever in contact with direct evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers.

[Mountain Man]

There is no real comparison. The rags mentioned by sam have little to no actual journalistic purpose. Excepting Fox, they exist simply for no other purpose than to justify a specific ideological position.

Jim

And yet you guys can never show that the information these "rags" report is factually wrong. You just bleat out the genetic fallacy and pretend you said something profound.

[Sam]

Give me a moment to look over the sources you provided to support you claims...

Oh, wait, you didn't provide any. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it, huh?

The FBI didn't say the information was "not discoverable", they flatly said that they don't have access to the information that is being requested. And Comey is on record saying that the FBI was dependent on CrowdStrike to "share with us what they saw".

Which is to say that to this day, nobody in any of our law enforcement agencies was ever in contact with direct evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers.

"My source isn't The Conservative Treehouse, it's the actual DOJ brief!"

<shortly thereafter>

"I obviously didn't read the header right past the paragraph quoted in The Conservative Treehouse."

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Image 040.jpg

[Mountain Man]

"My source isn't The Conservative Treehouse, it's the actual DOJ brief!"

<shortly thereafter>

"I obviously didn't read the header right past the paragraph quoted in The Conservative Treehouse."

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40039[/ATTACH]

You're getting things confused here, little man. The FBI flat out says that "the government does not possess the material the defendant seeks", so whether or not it is legally discoverable is moot, because the FBI can't disclose what it doesn't have.

Now that I'm done spoon feeding you, I'll let you wipe your own chin.