Trump on releasing the JFK records

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You are ignoring the plain language and plain meaning of the following, and you accuse ME of "confirmation bias"?

"...Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

• "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

• "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."

• Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." 

In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots." 

"HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC"
By Aaron Mate | RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

 

 

Sigh.  Yes, that's the e that left no trace.  I stipulated to this in the very beginning.  What you appear incapable of grasping is that the DNC servers were hacked -- that's the b -- to allow the e-mails to be exfiltrated by non-State actors without leaving a trace of their exfiltration.  

Fanatics have such confirmation bias even a simple concept like this eludes them.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sigh.  Yes, that's the e that left no trace.  I stipulated to this in the very beginning.  What you appear incapable of grasping is that the DNC servers were hacked -- that's the b -- to allow the e-mails to be exfiltrated by non-State actors without leaving a trace of their exfiltration.  

Fanatics have such confirmation bias even a simple concept like this eludes them.

 

You've just conceded there is NO EVIDENCE supporting the hypothesis that the DNC servers were hacked by Russians or anyone else, and that it is all dependent upon one's imagination. Well that just doesn't cut it Mr. Varnell.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Then in the current litigation, the FBI first denied having them, and then later admitted it, and admitted having the files contained in Seth Rich's computer.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Citation please. Just on the allegation that the FBI admitted to having Seth Rich's computer and it having DNC e-mails on it.

 

Just in case you missed it @Keven Hofeling, still waiting for a citation. I can't find anything on the FBI admitting they have Seth Rich's computer, holding DNC e-mails. Other than right-wing fake news sites.

 

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You've just conceded there is NO EVIDENCE supporting the hypothesis that the DNC servers were hacked by Russians or anyone else, and that it is all dependent upon one's imagination.

No, in order for Fancy Bear to set up -- "stage" -- the e-mails for exfiltration he had to hack into the server.

Fancy Bear left the same cyber fingerprints CrowdStrike found in Ukraine.  A b without any evidence of an e.

Doesn't seem all that difficult to grasp.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I trust Wikipedia articles because they are sourced. By reputable sources, not far-right or far-left fake news sites.

Also because there are competing editors for each article, which helps ensure that BS doesn't get published. Or if it does, it gets challenged and then removed.

 

The following is the Wikipedia page on the JFK assassination:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

Give it a quick read and consider how reliable and true it is even though it has so many sources.

If it doesn't appear reliable and true to you, then why do you think the same is not also case for all of the other topics on Wikipedia?

 

[Keven Hofeling]

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No, in order for Fancy Bear to set up -- "stage" -- the e-mails for exfiltration he had to hack into the server.

Fancy Bear left the same cyber fingerprints CrowdStrike found in Ukraine.  A b without any evidence of an e.

Doesn't seem all that difficult to grasp.

 

You are hemming and hawing about there being NO EVIDENCE...

That's the bottom line. You have NO EVIDENCE to cite in support of the notion that the DNC servers were hacked by the Russians or by anybody else.

Period.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

Give it a quick read and consider how reliable and true it is even though it has so many sources.

 

It represents the official WC and HSCA narratives quite well.

 

If you read this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

 

you'll find that it represents the various conspiracy theories quite well.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Robert Mueller was the FBI chief who curbed a true investigation into the 9/11 attack.

After two weeks Mueller said there was no more investigation necessary. 

Shades of 11/22/63? 

No, I do not think Mueller was covering up a domestic conspiracy---my guess he was protecting Saudis, on orders from President Bush. 

Mueller is not trustworthy. 

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You are hemming and hawing about there being NO EVIDENCE...

No evidence of exfiltration.

Evidence of staging for exfiltration.

22 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

That's the bottom line. You have NO EVIDENCE to cite in support of the notion that the DNC servers were hacked by the Russians or by anybody else.

Period.

That's not what Mr. Henry said.  He said he had evidence the DNC servers were hacked in order to set-up exfiltration.

Sigh.  You're the kind of guy who has to get the last 10,000 words.  Knock yourself out.

[Sandy Larsen]

I've found the legal document indicating that the FBI has Seth Rich's laptop, a CD, and tape drive:

https://www.justice.gov/oip/huddleston-v-fbi-no-20-00447-2023-wl-8235243-ed-tex-nov-28-2023-mazzant-j

The document states that the FBI doesn't want to release information on it because it will reveal methods it uses in its investigations.

What this tells me is that the FBI investigated the possibility that Seth Rich was a source of DNC e-mails leak.

But it doesn't tell me that he indeed was.

So I am still inclined to believe the Mueller report.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Just in case you missed it @Keven Hofeling, still waiting for a citation. I can't find anything on the FBI admitting they have Seth Rich's computer, holding DNC e-mails. Other than right-wing fake news sites.

 

I can't give you an exact citation to the FBI admission because I don't have access to the entire case file, just to the two pleadings I am linking you to below.

But I know that the FBI has made such an admission because the first bullet point on page 2 of Brian Huddleston's REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION provides as follows:

" After years of denials, the FBI has finally admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the “hack” of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016."

Huddleston's attorney wouldn't just frivolously throw that into the pleading unless it were true because under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Huddleston would be sanctioned by the Court for doing so. Rule 11 is why in all of the 2020 election cases Trump's attorneys never alleged election fraud, and it is the reason that Rudy Giuliani was disbarred for alleging election fraud to the Court. Most likely, the FBI made the admission in its Answer to Huddleston's Complaint, because if the FBI's attorney denied it, and it later turns out to be true, she would be subject to sanctions under FRCP 11. I'm going to do some digging tomorrow to see if I can come up with that Answer.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.92.0.pdf

 

And in the FBI's SIXTH DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. SEIDEL, at paragraph 6 on page 3 the FBI Technician claims that the FBI is in possession of a Compact Disc of Seth Rich's which the FBI claims is entirely exempt from being provided to Brian Huddleston. It is my bet that said CD contains the DNC files, and that that is the real reason the FBI is claiming it is exempt, although there are so many other things that the FBI is claiming exemptions about, I could be wrong. I've never litigated against the FBI before, but I have litigated against Utah state agencies, and this FBI Declaration has all the hallmarks times 10 of a government agency that is desperate to hide something, and of course, it is obvious what they are hiding. The FBI is so desperate to hide it that it has begun to float the story in the media that the Russians planted evidence on Seth Rich's computer post-mortem to falsely blame Seth Rich for being Wikileaks's source. That in itself is basically an admission by the FBI that they found the DNC files on Seth Rich's computer.

I suggest you read both of these pleadings very closely, because they are both very telling.

SIXTH DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. SEIDEL: 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.84.1.pdf

 

What is just as telling to me is that Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter Sy Hersch was taped saying that Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe shared an FBI report with him, and personally told Hersch that the FBI had Seth Rich's laptop and that the computer contains both the DNC emails and email correspondence between Rich and Wikileaks. Andrew McCabe never denied this when the news went public 5 years ago, and between the FBI denying having the DNC files on Seth Rich's laptop, which it did deny in the context of the Butowski litigation, and in the media (but apparently not in the Brian Huddleston case), Sy Hersch has the far greater credibility, hands down.

 

Edited March 22 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

47 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It represents the official WC and HSCA narratives quite well.

 

If you read this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

 

you'll find that it represents the various conspiracy theories quite well.

 

So you are impressed that Wikileaks puts all the lies on the page that is supposed to contain the truth, and the truth on a page designated under the CIA created label "Conspiracy Theories," are you?

I sure see a lot of mentions of John McAdams and Vincent Bugliosi on that "Conspiracy Theory" page, but I don't see the names or work of Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik, and Dr. Gary Aguilar there.

I don't see the names Thom Whitehead or Sydney Wilkinson, or anything serious about Zapruder film falsification or alteration of the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

I am often shocked to see how many assassination researchers compartmentalize the corruption of 11/22/1963 from the corruption of contemporary modern-day politics, as if that was all somehow an isolated event without ramifications on the present day. Some of the very best researchers I know, it turns out, view the world in this manner.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I sure see a lot of mentions of John McAdams and Vincent Bugliosi on that "Conspiracy Theory" page, but I don't see the names or work of Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik, and Dr. Gary Aguilar there.

 

The article isn't long enough to go into that kind of detail. (Particularly with all the conspiracy theories there are.)

Same thing is true on the Wikipedia article on the WC/HSCA version of the narrative.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

46 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No evidence of exfiltration.

Evidence of staging for exfiltration.

That's not what Mr. Henry said.  He said he had evidence the DNC servers were hacked in order to set-up exfiltration.

Sigh.  You're the kind of guy who has to get the last 10,000 words.  Knock yourself out.

The following is all from Henry's formerly classified testimony given under pains and penalties of perjury in closed session, and it contains nothing about "fancy bear" exfiltration. This is the testimony that counts, not the two lines you keep posting from the Schiff politician who was not under oath, and was obviously --at least to those of us who aren't suckered by McCarthyists like Schiff -- making his personal contribution to deep state corruption when he said it. By all means, if you have some actual evidence, please DO post it:

"...Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

• "There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

• "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."

• Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that." 

In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken "screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots." 

"HIDDEN OVER 2 YEARS: DEM CYBER FIRM'S SWORN TESTIMONY IT HAD NO PROOF OF RUSSIAN HACK OF DNC"
By Aaron Mate | RealClearInvestigations | May 13, 2020 | https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

[Sandy Larsen]

Here are are all the lawsuit documents filed for the Seth Rich case, Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211651/huddleston-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/