re: Did Seth Rich Download DNC data on thumb-drive before his murder & FBI has 2 Seth laptops?

quote:

---

The SINGLE agency capable of closing this out is the NSA. Yet the NSA cannot prove it, or even imply it with confidence.

---

Just going to have to keep posting quotes and links for things already addressed.

quote:

---

We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.

---

p. 9

You are a complete tool.

quote:

---

We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.

---

And as you say, I'm just going to have to raise the obvious red flags, again.

The problem with your "we" in "we assess" is it references discredited agencies. Further, you have the one agency which should be able to nail the perps to the wall, the NSA, instead coming up with questions.

The FBI/CIA vs NSA position comes off like the Sheriff and City Police arresting an anti-LEO activist for arson. They perp walk him. They announce they're 100% confident he's their guy, the firestarter. Meanwhile, the Fire Dept says it can't find solid evidence of arson.

---

You argue that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear accessed the DNC, so they must have been culpable in transferring the 20K emails to Wikileaks. IAW Ockham's razor, the conclusion makes sense. Indeed, when reports first surfaced of the Dutch hacking Russian security cams and computer systems to spy on the Russian computer teams at work, I was a believer too.

Revelations of the Dutch program came at a time the DNC insider-job, no hack, thumbdrive download narrative was taking hold ... along with associated Seth Rich questions. The Dutch story seemed to be a gamechanger. It was fascinating ... a real shiny object.

Then, of course, questions arose: (1) The Dutch were irate we blew their cover. Why would we do that? The only justification was the CIA/FBI solidifying its DNC-hack claims. But goodness, AT WHAT COST? At the cost of exposing a huge intel highway? At the cost of losing treasure troves of future intel? REALLY? Perhaps the assessment of USIC was it needed one helluva shiny object, and we needed it badly enough to screw the Dutch? But why? (2) The Dutch were working hand-in-hand with our NSA. When they'd ID an attempted hack, they'd inform the NSA, and the NSA would shut it down. Why is the same NSA less confident about origins of the DNC data? (3) As is the case with both Crowdstrike and the NSA, there is no Dutch record of DNC data extraction, not even via screenshots. Where is the documented remote DNC network data extraction? No one has demonstrated it.

In the end, you're simply left with the CIA/FBI saying "Ignore the DNC metadata. There's nothing to see here," and insisting the Wikileaks material came from the Russians. They proclaim it with the same assured confidence they had in the Steele Dossier. Their evidence is reduced to "trust us, that's what happened."
Even you see the problem there, Decatur.

---

Meanwhile, your "computer expert," Duncan Campbell, is really the basis of your whole "metadata hoax" premise. Isn't he?

Campbell unequivocally establishes a guy named Tim Leonard (a working-class computer-geek in Northeastern England) as the archevil sower of Russian disinformation at the center of all the metadata controversy. He dwells on Tim Leonard. Campbell is obsessed with him. He scandalizes the poor fellow >80X in a single article. Given Leonard's ongoing behavior and vicious misspeak and treachery, indeed cooperation with Russian spy networks as Campbell describes it, Tim Leonard ought to have received the TommyRobinson treatment in England. He certainly deserves time in the Old Bailey. Yet, little Tim Leonard is free as a bird. No charges, civil or criminal. Nothing. Now does that really make sense?

Legitimacy of Campbell's entire yarn is woven around one premise -- Binney changed his mind about validity of the DNC metadata. In fact, Binney's "flip" is essential to giving Campbell any credibility on the subject at all. The problem is, Binney did not change his mind. He didn't 'flip.' Campbell was either conveniently confused or he lied, and with that detail, his story disintegrates, as does his credibility.

quote:

---

Further, you have the one agency which should be able to nail the perps to the wall, the NSA, instead coming up with questions.

---

I’ve already showed you that the NSA joined the high confidence judgement that the GRU hacked the DNC and gave access to the emails to Wikileaks. There were no questions or difference of confidence level on the judgment. Really feel like I’m wasting my time with you. Getting tired of repeating myself.

quote:

---

The fact when your referencing the Mueller Report at all is what is stupid.

---

The fact that you generalize the Mueller Report in that way is not stupid, it is first class ignorance.

quote:

---

Apologies. I must admit, I'm behind on my conservativetreehouse these days.

---

You're also behind on growing a brain

quote:

---

The ENTIRE premise of the Mueller Report was based on a lie. Ignorant is as ignorant does. Cornell Law Link regarding Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

---

If you're a lawyer (which I doubt) you should be embarrassed for posting such ignorance. FOTPT is an adage used to describe a rule of evidence.

It is not applicable or analogus to the situation you proposed.

If the Report was based on a lie, what lie do you suggest it was based on?