Roger Stone Communicated With Russian Hackers, Mueller Indictment Suggests

[ludin]

I agree. I'm simply pointing out that the claim:

"There is no evidence that anything points to Trump"

Is so trivially shown to be false, that it's unbelievable someone could even suggest it. There is an enormous body of evidence pointing to the guilty of a wide range of people who have not yet been indicted, just in the public record. Motive, evidence of cover up and lies, denial, connections, history of similar sketchy activity, Russia's 20+ agents who did engage in that activity, Russia's known methods of grooming others to assist, etc., etc.

no evidence? That *anything* points to Trump? Is absurd.

Yet he isn't under investigation and all of these indigents he has not been one.
Amazing.

 

[Howard the Duck]

As I said your not interested in Russian meddling. Thanks for supporting what I said.

The contraction for you are is you're.

I'm very interested in Russian meddling. Never presume to speak on the Duck's behalf.

 

[Mach]

Yet he isn't under investigation

That's false too.

Trump and his campaign are under active criminal (and counter intelligence) investigation.
(he's likely also embroiled in the spin-off serious starring his personal attorney, Michael Cohen "The Fixer", but I digress)
Numerous people from his campaign are already indicted or have plead guilty related to this, that alone is evidence that points to Trump.

and all of these indigents he has not been one.

And that's just plain stupid.
1. DOJ has already said it cannot indict a sitting president
2. Obvious they are laying out the Russian crime indictments first, and will then have a criminal conspiracy to reference when they indict the Americans.
They also have to do that last, because once they start indicting Ameriacns involved directly, the **** will hit the fan. Do that too soon and you put the investigation at more risk, which would be stupid.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/politics/hayden-widening-circle-cnntv/index.html

even some of the more honest Republicans admit this:

Hayden, who was CIA director under President George W. Bush, added that he "would not be surprised" if future indictments were of Americans, citing the seemingly deliberate move to not explicitly deny American involvement in today's indictment.

 

[haymarket]

I agree. I'm simply pointing out that the claim:

"There is no evidence that anything points to Trump"

Is so trivially shown to be false, that it's unbelievable someone could even suggest it. There is an enormous body of evidence pointing to the guilty of a wide range of people who have not yet been indicted, just in the public record. Motive, evidence of cover up and lies, denial, connections, history of similar sketchy activity, Russia's 20+ agents who did engage in that activity, Russia's known methods of grooming others to assist, etc., etc.

no evidence? That *anything* points to Trump? Is absurd.

I agree and will go even further. When people live in their own carefully constructed alternate reality is that not a form of willful mental illness brought on my extremist political beliefs placing the person apart from most of society?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/.../are-religious-and-political-extremists-crazy

Our diagnostic system has chosen not to consider fanaticism a mental disorder. But confusion nonetheless arises because there is no clear boundary separating religious and political extremism from psychiatric illness. One man's cherished belief is another man's delusion.

I think this angle needs more investigation as more and more people on the far right seem to inhabit their own peculiar reality apart from the rest of society.

 

[vesper]

The problem is that people are not interested in all Russian meddling.
They only care about trump.

I posted two articles that linked the hilllary o not only Russia but to the Ukrainian government as well.
And you noticed that none of these people blinked an eye.

More so all they can do is just hand wave.
There is a ton of evidence that the FBI used steeles report that came from Russia that was spotty at best to

Why is fusions offices not raided with the DNC.
We can't really raid hillary's she kept having it destroyed.

I wonder why the DNC wouldn't turn over their server to have it inspected after they said it was hacked.
I am sure there are reasons why. There is now cause to actually get a warrant for that server.

Yet I keep asking where is mueller.

No many posters aren't interested in the Russian meddling and the dangers of people of power not protecting themselves from cyber attacks. They are just salivating at hope that Mueller will find something that can be used to open Impeachment hearings.
Yes it seems the focus is clearly on Trump and anyone associated with him. And any indictments handed out in regard to Trump's campaign, have had nothing to do with Russian collusion. The only indictments so far that I am aware of that pertain to Russia meddling are the Russians.

I can't think of one good reason the DNC refused to allow access to the server and chose rather to have an independent company deal with removing the malicious programs. The company they hired was CrowdStrike but in the indictment, filed by the office of Special Council, reveals that CrowdStrike was unsuccessful in expelling intruders from the DNC’s networks in June and that a malicious program “remained on the DNC network until in or around October 2016.
The hackers also gained access to DNC computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service around September 2016, which enabled them to steal data from the DNC by creating backups, or snapshots, of the DNC’s cloud-based systems. Another feckless screwup on their part.

But as far as Clinton's private server goes there were a couple of names mentioned in Thursday's hearing that were former Intelligence Community Inspector Generals that had uncovered irregularities on Clinton's server of foreign entities receiving her emails which was of great concern. One did go public about it a couple years ago. McCoullough. (sp?) The other is said to have informed Strzok.. It sounds to me just by the way the questions were asked is there have been depositions taken by these ICIG people on this issue but I have no way of knowing that.

Obama's DOJ/FBI had some pretty corrupted persons in the upper eschelon. And there seemed to be according to the IG excessive leaking to reporters of sensitive information and receiving favors from reporters for the information like tickets for sports events etc. Not to mention the abuse of the number of massive unmaskings of U.S. citizens is damn disturbing! My only hope is the IG's investigation along with U.S. Atty Huber into the handling of the Trump investigation going over all the evidence that justice will be served. There is nothing leaking out of that investigation. Zip. The only information was last month that Huber had secured 3 sealed indictments.

 

[Slyfox696]

Where's the part that says Stone knew Guccifer was Russian Intel ... in 2015.

The conversations mentioned in the indictment was from August 2016. Not sure why you're talking about 2015.

Here's an article from July 2016 where it is fairly clearly laid out Russia was behind the DNC hack: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/...y-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html

In other words, Stone would have known he was conversing with Russian hackers. But, regardless of what he knew about their nationalities, he FOR SURE knew he was dealing and coordinating illegally obtained materials.

Stone's time in the Trump campaign was very short and ended in 2015.

But his communications with the Trump campaign continued up to and through the election, as noted in the indictment and Stone himself. So that's not a good argument.

I like and respect Slyfox even though he stopped responding to me yesterday when I asked him if he was looking into what Fusion was doing with the Russian lady lawyer who met with Trump Junior.
After all, he did kind of imply All Russians = Russian Intel so it'd be natural line of inquiry.

I never got a notification for the post you mention here and I usually only reply to posts that I have a quote notification from. What post is it and I'll reply to it.

EDIT: Without knowing exactly what you asked, the short answer is Veselnitskaya was working for Prevezon, a company that FusionGPS was subcontracted by Baker Hostetler to find information for (at least, that's my understanding according to Simpson's testimony). The dinner on the 10th, Simpson testified he didn't speak with her at all. The dinner on the 8th was about the Prevezon case, according to Simpson.

My only mistake

I don't believe you made a mistake, I believe you deliberately posted things you knew were false. Just like you have repeatedly done in another thread about whether Americans did anything wrong according to the indictment.

You have repeatedly posted things which are not true and even now you are trying to insinuate criminal actions against Awan which the government already cleared. In my opinion, that is as dishonest as it gets. You can't discuss the topic, which is Russia hacked both parties but only released one party's dirty laundry and then didn't even seemingly try to hack the Trump campaign. You can't discuss that so you continue to post dishonest insinuations and falsehoods.

 

[bubbabgone]

The conversations mentioned in the indictment was from August 2016. Not sure why you're talking about 2015.

Here's an article from July 2016 where it is fairly clearly laid out Russia was behind the DNC hack: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/...y-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html

In other words, Stone would have known he was conversing with Russian hackers. But, regardless of what he knew about their nationalities, he FOR SURE knew he was dealing and coordinating illegally obtained materials.
But his communications with the Trump campaign continued up to and through the election, as noted in the indictment and Stone himself. So that's not a good argument.

I never got a notification for the post you mention here and I usually only reply to posts that I have a quote notification from. What post is it and I'll reply to it.

EDIT: Without knowing exactly what you asked, the short answer is Veselnitskaya was working for Prevezon, a company that FusionGPS was subcontracted by Baker Hostetler to find information for (at least, that's my understanding according to Simpson's testimony). The dinner on the 10th, Simpson testified he didn't speak with her at all. The dinner on the 8th was about the Prevezon case, according to Simpson.

Let's stop dancing and instead drill down to what really matters.

"The problem in the Russian investigation is that we have plenty of crimes but not necessarily plenty of colluders."
"Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates."
"... While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate (Stoe) unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign."
"There are some individuals who, according to media reports, may have sought hacked material from WikiLeaks. There also is an unnamed journalist who sought such information, and even an unnamed candidate for Congress. That does not mean, however, that it is a crime for reporters or academics or political activists to review such information if they did not play a role in illegal removal. Indeed, numerous journalists, including at least one reporter for The Hill, sought access to Guccifer 2.0’s information."
"As for the information shared by the Russian units, it is was rather underwhelming even to the recipients. For example, Guccifer 2.0 sends a Trump associate (Stone) what is described as “the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign.” The Russians were eager to help, even saying in similarly stilted language, “please tell me if i can help u anyhow … it would be a great pleasure to me.” However, the recipient simply responds that the information is “pretty standard.” "
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/396969-ignore-the-spin-still-no-evidence-of-trump-collusion

​

To sum up, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
So as of now there still doesn't appear to be any horses around.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Russian hackers were into every US state's voter rolls by 2016. That's a concern.

 

[Fletch]

Russian hackers were into every US state's voter rolls by 2016. That's a concern.

Obama was president in 2016. Maybe he should have done something

 

[Slyfox696]

Let's stop dancing and instead drill down to what really matters.

Quoting an opinion article isn't likely to do that...

"The problem in the Russian investigation is that we have plenty of crimes but not necessarily plenty of colluders."
"Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates."
"... While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate (Stoe) unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign."
"There are some individuals who, according to media reports, may have sought hacked material from WikiLeaks. There also is an unnamed journalist who sought such information, and even an unnamed candidate for Congress. That does not mean, however, that it is a crime for reporters or academics or political activists to review such information if they did not play a role in illegal removal. Indeed, numerous journalists, including at least one reporter for The Hill, sought access to Guccifer 2.0’s information."
"As for the information shared by the Russian units, it is was rather underwhelming even to the recipients. For example, Guccifer 2.0 sends a Trump associate (Stone) what is described as “the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign.” The Russians were eager to help, even saying in similarly stilted language, “please tell me if i can help u anyhow … it would be a great pleasure to me.” However, the recipient simply responds that the information is “pretty standard.” "
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/396969-ignore-the-spin-still-no-evidence-of-trump-collusion

​

Responding just to your bold:

1) Does not preclude the possibility of those communicating with Russians who knew who they were communicating with, as we've established Stone did.
2) Correct...THIS indictment does not. It also does not preclude any future indictments of the sort. What this indictment DOES do is lay out actions taken by US persons which is clearly illegal.
3) 100% false. Trump Jr., responding to the offer of a meeting to get Russian dirt on Clinton, from a Russian agent, with the response of "I love it" and then taking the meeting, is 100% compelling evidence of collusion.
4) It is, however, a crime for a US candidate for Congress to request and receive the stolen information of the candidate's opponent, for the obvious reason of assisting their campaign. The fourth line you bolded from the author was incredibly dishonest and the author knows it. Furthermore, the indictment also noted one reported responded to the receipt of the stolen information by "discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their release". The author was incredibly dishonest here.
5&6) The author ignores the other conversations Stone had with Guccifer 2.0, thus indicating an ongoing conversation, as Stone himself presented.

What really matters is that an advisor to the Trump had ongoing conversations with Russian intelligence about stolen materials. US Congressional candidate requested and received stolen information for the benefit of his/her campaign. Russian intelligence engaged in numerous and repeated hacking attempts/successes against Trump opponents for the now established fact of helping the Trump campaign. One of those hacking attempts happened within a 24 hour period of Donald Trump requesting it. Trump campaign met multiple times with Russian agents and spies. When Trump team was offered dirt illegally obtained through hacks by known Russian agents, the Trump team jumped at the opportunity and met with them, a meeting which took place only a day after the DCLeaks website went live.

What really matters is we have significant evidence there was a lot of illegal things going on.

So as of now there still doesn't appear to be any horses around.

Unless you examine the facts which are already known which provide plenty of evidence and assume there are plenty of facts we still don't know (for example, the fact US Congressional candidates were requesting stolen information).

 

[Barnacle]

Obama was president in 2016. Maybe he should have done something

He told them to cut it out ...

 

[Parrish]

He told them to cut it out ...

45 said he'd do the same. Yep, he did. It's a fact.

 

[Linc]

45 said he'd do the same. Yep, he did. It's a fact.

**45 knows McConnellism cut Obama off at the knees on Russia in September 2016. So does everyone else. gops must be continually fact-checked on this, every single day.

 

[Parrish]

**45 knows McConnellism cut Obama off at the knees on Russia in September 2016. So does everyone else. gops must be continually fact-checked on this, every single day.

They're the "deep state" which is the same as being in a deep coma.

 

[Fletch]

45 said he'd do the same. Yep, he did. It's a fact.

Then you obviously support Trump doing the same thing.

 

[Fletch]

**45 knows McConnellism cut Obama off at the knees on Russia in September 2016. So does everyone else. gops must be continually fact-checked on this, every single day.

You want to say that in English?

 

[vesper]

The conversations mentioned in the indictment was from August 2016. Not sure why you're talking about 2015.

I don't believe you made a mistake, I believe you deliberately posted things you knew were false. Just like you have repeatedly done in another thread about whether Americans did anything wrong according to the indictment.

You have repeatedly posted things which are not true and even now you are trying to insinuate criminal actions against Awan which the government already cleared. In my opinion, that is as dishonest as it gets.


You can't discuss the topic, which is Russia hacked both parties but only released one party's dirty laundry and then didn't even seemingly try to hack the Trump campaign. You can't discuss that so you continue to post dishonest insinuations and falsehoods.

What's dishonest is your lying comments of what I actually posted.

My only mistake with Anwan is not using the word alleged in listing things he was being investigated for and I posted a link that indeed that proved Anwan was under investigation by the FBI for months of the very things I stated and the prosecutor determined there wasn't enough there to charge him and offered Anwan a plea deal where he pled guilty to bank fraud.
And all this just became news recently. But that doesn't change the fact that while Anwan was the IT guy for House Dems he was also involved in criminal behavior.

I also posted a link to a WSJ piece that did show attempts to hack the RNC using the same tactics as was done to the DNC. It was thwarted because of the cyber security the RNC has in place. If it wasn't for the cyber security there would have been a good chance that the RNC emails would have been posted on Wikileaks, DCLeaks etc.

There's been discussion in this thread on why didn't the DNC allow the FBI to identify the extent of the intrusion? Instead they hired a private company called Crowdstrike and in Mueller's indictment it reveals this company did not completely remove the intruders as Debbie Wasserman Shultz, DNC officials had claimed in June 2016 and that the Russians continued to hack the DNC clear up till October 2016.
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/




In the indictment read #32 and #34 describing how the company the DNC hired didn't get the job done and continued to be hacked through Oct. 2016
read #37 though Guccifer wasn't successful in hacking the RNC they were able to hack personal accounts of those who associate with the Republican party and posted them online.
read #42 in what Guccifer 2.0 response was about Company 1 (Crowdstrike) that had supposedly had identified the intruders and removed them.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download


It's a crying shame the DNC didn't immediately allow the FBI to inspect their server and opted for a private company instead. It might have thwarted the hacks five months earlier.

It's a crying shame that Hillary Clinton was so negligent and careless with her private server and the practices of persons associated with her transferring emails to unsecured locations.
The reports out there that her server was compromised by foreign entities should be scary to everyone because of the nature of her position as Secretary of State

It's a crying shame that House Dems used an IT guy that turned out to be involved in criminal activity while he was employed by the Dems. Some of these Dems served on sensitive committees such as the Intelligence committee. It was the capitol police that first started investigating Anwan over irregularities and later the FBI was called in. An IT guy has to be above reproach period.


Cyber Security is the upmost importance. And the Democrats have learned that lesson the hard way.

 

[Slyfox696]

What's dishonest is your lying comments of what I actually posted.

:lol: :lol:

I don't believe you made a mistake, I believe you deliberately posted things you knew were false. Just like you have repeatedly done in another thread about whether Americans did anything wrong according to the indictment.

You have repeatedly posted things which are not true and even now you are trying to insinuate criminal actions against Awan which the government already cleared. In my opinion, that is as dishonest as it gets. You can't discuss the topic, which is Russia hacked both parties but only released one party's dirty laundry and then didn't even seemingly try to hack the Trump campaign. You can't discuss that so you continue to post dishonest insinuations and falsehoods.

 

[bubbabgone]

Quoting an opinion article isn't likely to do that...
Responding just to your bold:

1) Does not preclude the possibility of those communicating with Russians who knew who they were communicating with, as we've established Stone did.
2) Correct...THIS indictment does not. It also does not preclude any future indictments of the sort. What this indictment DOES do is lay out actions taken by US persons which is clearly illegal.
3) 100% false. Trump Jr., responding to the offer of a meeting to get Russian dirt on Clinton, from a Russian agent, with the response of "I love it" and then taking the meeting, is 100% compelling evidence of collusion.
4) It is, however, a crime for a US candidate for Congress to request and receive the stolen information of the candidate's opponent, for the obvious reason of assisting their campaign. The fourth line you bolded from the author was incredibly dishonest and the author knows it. Furthermore, the indictment also noted one reported responded to the receipt of the stolen information by "discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their release". The author was incredibly dishonest here.
5&6) The author ignores the other conversations Stone had with Guccifer 2.0, thus indicating an ongoing conversation, as Stone himself presented.

What really matters is that an advisor to the Trump had ongoing conversations with Russian intelligence about stolen materials. US Congressional candidate requested and received stolen information for the benefit of his/her campaign. Russian intelligence engaged in numerous and repeated hacking attempts/successes against Trump opponents for the now established fact of helping the Trump campaign. One of those hacking attempts happened within a 24 hour period of Donald Trump requesting it. Trump campaign met multiple times with Russian agents and spies. When Trump team was offered dirt illegally obtained through hacks by known Russian agents, the Trump team jumped at the opportunity and met with them, a meeting which took place only a day after the DCLeaks website went live.

What really matters is we have significant evidence there was a lot of illegal things going on.

Unless you examine the facts which are already known which provide plenty of evidence and assume there are plenty of facts we still don't know (for example, the fact US Congressional candidates were requesting stolen information).

As I might have mentioned before, I hate to write & read long posts.
So let me summarize with a key statement from that opinion writer, the Doctor of Law, the "American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism","professor of law at the George Washington University Law School." - "That does not mean, however, that it is a crime for reporters or academics or political activists to review such information if they did not play a role in illegal removal."

Slyfox696 vs Jonathan Turley is not a fair fight. I trust you realize that.

 

[bubbabgone]

... Russia hacked both parties ... didn't even seemingly try to hack the Trump campaign. ...

Trying to hack the RNC doesn't count?
Russia's attempts to hack GOP reportedly fail because of spam filter - Business Insider
I bet you anticipated needing a "that's different" excuse. Amiright?

 

[Deuce]

How bout you get back to us when you have information?

Unsourced speculation does not cut it.

QUALITY MATTERS

Uhh, the indictment is the source.

From Indictment: Guccifer 2.0 was run by Russian agents.

From Roger Stone’s Own ****ing Twitter: Roger Stone communicated with Guccifer 2.0.

Which of these two things is unsourced and/or speculation?

 

[Slyfox696]

As I might have mentioned before, I hate to write & read long posts.
So let me summarize with a key statement from that opinion writer, the Doctor of Law, the "American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism","professor of law at the George Washington University Law School." - "That does not mean, however, that it is a crime for reporters or academics or political activists to review such information if they did not play a role in illegal removal."

I replied to that. I'll be more specific:

It is, however, a crime for a US candidate for Congress to request and receive the stolen information of the candidate's opponent, for the obvious reason of assisting their campaign. The fourth line you bolded from the author was incredibly dishonest and the author knows it. Furthermore, the indictment also noted one reporter responded to the receipt of the stolen information by "discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their release". The author was incredibly dishonest here.

That's why the author was dishonest. He was speaking in general terms, but the indictment noted specific actions. I wasn't arguing his position that, generally, it's not a crime for reporters/academics/activists to review, I'm arguing that these SPECIFIC instances are. For a parallel example, it's not necessarily a crime to possess Vicodin, but it is a crime if you don't have a prescription.

The author tries to explain away the specific by noting a generality...it's dishonest of the author.

Trying to hack the RNC doesn't count?

There's a difference between hacking old RNC servers (and not releasing the data) and hacking the campaign itself. Russia hacked the DNC, the DCCC, Clinton offices and their campaign. They did not put forth NEARLY that much effort against Trump.

I bet you anticipated needing a "that's different" excuse. Amiright?

No, I had already addressed the RNC hack which wasn't released and noted how Russia did not go after the Trump campaign.

 

[Casca XV]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ueller-indictment_us_5b48d9dce4b0bc69a786e89c

Among the revelations in special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee was that the hackers communicated with individuals in the United States — including “a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.”

Although not named in Friday’s documents, that person is widely known to be Trump confidant Roger Stone, who has previously posted screenshots of his interactions with one of the hackers, Guccifer 2.0.
========================================================
Who wants to bet whether or not Stone is among the next shoes to drop in the Mueller probe?

It must be miserable, hanging all your hopes on this while the rest of the country is seeing and feeling President Trump create the greatest period of domestic and foreign policy prosperity in modern US History.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No matter what you come up with about what Trump knew, or didn't know at the time, one thing is crystal clear: Once he found out, he didn't give a damn and was happy to get as much help from Vladimir Putin as he could.

And, it is staggeringly obvious that he and the Republican Party are eager and overjoyed to get more help again. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the rest of the Fox News traitors are committing actual outright treason right under our noses.
They will stop at nothing.

If any of these people ever try to wrap themselves in the flag and sell themselves as patriots again, I recommend that the American people launch the mother of all bloody revolutions to stomp it down for keeps.

 

[ludin]

No many posters aren't interested in the Russian meddling and the dangers of people of power not protecting themselves from cyber attacks. They are just salivating at hope that Mueller will find something that can be used to open Impeachment hearings.
Yes it seems the focus is clearly on Trump and anyone associated with him. And any indictments handed out in regard to Trump's campaign, have had nothing to do with Russian collusion. The only indictments so far that I am aware of that pertain to Russia meddling are the Russians.

I have been saying that for a while. This entire investigation has nothing to do with Russian meddling. This is strictly a get trump out of office investigation. There was some indictments to lying to the FBI, but those could easily be challenged in court that Hillary's IT people lied to the FBI and where never charged. Equal protection is a must in this case.

I can't think of one good reason the DNC refused to allow access to the server and chose rather to have an independent company deal with removing the malicious programs. The company they hired was CrowdStrike but in the indictment, filed by the office of Special Council, reveals that CrowdStrike was unsuccessful in expelling intruders from the DNC’s networks in June and that a malicious program “remained on the DNC network until in or around October 2016.

That is an easy one. If we had the DNC server they would have found a whole ton of questionable emails and other such things on there. More so the GPS Fusion> Steele Russian link. I am sure
there was a whole ton of other stuff on there as well such as fixing the election for Clinton which would amount to election fraud and other things.

The hackers also gained access to DNC computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service around September 2016, which enabled them to steal data from the DNC by creating backups, or snapshots, of the DNC’s cloud-based systems. Another feckless screwup on their part.

yep any information like that should be kept on a secure server that is encrypted not a cloud based solution sitting on the internet for anyone to get.
then again it would help if the head guy didn't click on the link to increase his penis size either. Only idiots do that. which is how they really got in.

But as far as Clinton's private server goes there were a couple of names mentioned in Thursday's hearing that were former Intelligence Community Inspector Generals that had uncovered irregularities on Clinton's server of foreign entities receiving her emails which was of great concern. One did go public about it a couple years ago. McCoullough. (sp?) The other is said to have informed Strzok.. It sounds to me just by the way the questions were asked is there have been depositions taken by these ICIG people on this issue but I have no way of knowing that.

Obama's DOJ/FBI had some pretty corrupted persons in the upper eschelon. And there seemed to be according to the IG excessive leaking to reporters of sensitive information and receiving favors from reporters for the information like tickets for sports events etc. Not to mention the abuse of the number of massive unmaskings of U.S. citizens is damn disturbing! My only hope is the IG's investigation along with U.S. Atty Huber into the handling of the Trump investigation going over all the evidence that justice will be served. There is nothing leaking out of that investigation. Zip. The only information was last month that Huber had secured 3 sealed indictments.

Obama ran one of the most corrupt DOJ's we had ever had. Those two idiots make Janet Reno look like one of the best DOJ we ever had.
You couldn't get two more corrupt people than Lynch and Holder. What is even worse is that Comey said that he had information on Lynch.

now if he knows for a fact that she has committed some kind of crime and hasn't reported it or turned over evidence then he is an accompliss
someone needs to subpoena him and find out what he has on her and what it was.