• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russians leaked Mueller investigation evidence online, prosecutors say

Oh dear, the poor Prosecutors Of Muellerberg.
 
BlueTex said:
You should probably read the actual response to the motion...

On October 22, 2018, the newly created Twitter account @HackingRedstone published the
following tweet: “We’ve got access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database as we hacked
Russian server with info from the Russian troll case Concord LLC v. Mueller. You can view all
the files Mueller had about the IRA and Russian collusion. Enjoy the reading!”

The tweet also included a link to a webpage located on an online file-sharing portal. This webpage contained file
folders with names and folder structures that are unique to the names and structures of materials
(including tracking numbers assigned by the Special Counsel’s Office) produced by the
government in discovery.

The FBI’s initial review of the over 300,000 files from the website has
found that the unique “hashtag” values of over 1,000 files on the website matched the hashtag
values of files produced in discovery.

Furthermore, the FBI’s ongoing review has found no
evidence that U.S. government servers, including servers used by the Special Counsel’s Office,
fell victim to any computer intrusion involving the discovery files.
The fact that the file folder names and folder structure on the webpage significantly match
the non-public names and file structure of the materials produced in discovery, and the fact that
over 1,000 files on the webpage match those produced in discovery, establish that the person(s)
who created the webpage had access to at least some of the non-sensitive discovery produced by
the government in this case.

Furthermore, the fact that some of the file structure on the webpage
includes the “REL” file designation, which indicates the data was taken from a Relativity database,
also suggests that the data was not taken from the Special Counsel’s Office or the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, because the government has not used Relativity databases to store data related to this case.
In addition, the dissemination of the link to the webpage via a Twitter message claiming to provide
access to “all the files Mueller had about the IRA and Russian collusion” and the fact that the
webpage contained numerous irrelevant files suggest that the person who created the webpage
used their knowledge of the non-sensitive discovery to make it appear as though the irrelevant files
contained on the webpage were the sum total evidence of “IRA and Russian collusion” gathered
by law enforcement in this matter in an apparent effort to discredit the investigation.


http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/01/30/2019-1-30concord.2.pdf
Click to expand...

Again...

On October 22, 2018, the newly created Twitter account @HackingRedstone published the
following tweet: “We’ve got access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database as we hacked
Russian server with info from the Russian troll case Concord LLC v. Mueller. You can view all
the files Mueller had about the IRA and Russian collusion. Enjoy the reading!”
Click to expand...

When I read that, this is what I understand:

1. Someone hacked a Russian server on which discovery information, given to Concord LLC lawyers by Mueller, was stored.

2. The hackers make some claims about this being "access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database". I don't see how this is true, given the information in #1. All they have is the stuff Mueller gave to those lawyers.

3. I can certainly understand Mueller's concern that THEY might have gotten hacked, but as he says...it doesn't look like it.

Now...it seems Mueller wants to use this event as a reason to NOT provide more discovery material, as requested by defense lawyers. I think this is a good reason. However, the judge should base his remarks on the facts. If it's proven that the lawyers didn't take any kinds of precautions against getting hacked, the judge's remarks are reasonable. If it's not proven, then the judge is out of line.

The thing is, there is no indication that the lawyers had anything to do with the hack on their server or that they had anything to do with the use of the material by the hackers.

If I were the judge, I'd tell the lawyers that they won't be getting anymore discovery material until they satisfy me that they have taken effective steps to safeguard the material...and I'd leave it at that. Chastising the lawyers...without any indication that they were at fault...by the judge; I find that to be out of line and counter productive.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...it's the American lawyer's fault that Russians hacked the server on which was stored discovery material that Mueller gave to the lawyers.

That's like saying it's Wasserman-Schultz's fault that someone hacked the server that the DNC stored all their files on. It's like saying it's Podesta's fault that someone broke into his google email account and got all his emails. (Oh...wait...yeah, THAT one is his fault. He was a dumbass who used "password" for his password.)

I wonder...did Mueller give the discovery material to the lawyers in digital form? Did the judge order Mueller to turn over the discovery material?

Maybe the judge should admit to a certain amount of fault?
Click to expand...




The judge, in a very big way, gave the "american lawyers", an epic dressing down in open court for their incompetence.

There was no hacking. The letter than alleged it is all part of the op.
 
Mycroft said:
Again...



When I read that, this is what I understand:

1. Someone hacked a Russian server on which discovery information, given to Concord LLC lawyers by Mueller, was stored.

2. The hackers make some claims about this being "access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database". I don't see how this is true, given the information in #1. All they have is the stuff Mueller gave to those lawyers.

3. I can certainly understand Mueller's concern that THEY might have gotten hacked, but as he says...it doesn't look like it.

Now...it seems Mueller wants to use this event as a reason to NOT provide more discovery material, as requested by defense lawyers. I think this is a good reason. However, the judge should base his remarks on the facts. If it's proven that the lawyers didn't take any kinds of precautions against getting hacked, the judge's remarks are reasonable. If it's not proven, then the judge is out of line.

The thing is, there is no indication that the lawyers had anything to do with the hack on their server or that they had anything to do with the use of the material by the hackers.

If I were the judge, I'd tell the lawyers that they won't be getting anymore discovery material until they satisfy me that they have taken effective steps to safeguard the material...and I'd leave it at that. Chastising the lawyers...without any indication that they were at fault...by the judge; I find that to be out of line and counter productive.
Click to expand...



There was no hacking, the letter was all part of the subterfuge to use discovery information as a gambit to discredit Mueller


I believe the Judge did exactly this.
 
OscarLevant said:
There was no hacking, the letter was all part of the subterfuge to use discovery information as a gambit to discredit Mueller


I believe the Judge did exactly this.
Click to expand...

There was no hacking. And you know this how? Did someone examine the Russian server and make a report?
 
Mycroft said:
There was no hacking. And you know this how? Did someone examine the Russian server and make a report?
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you always seem to defend both Trump AND the Russians no matter what either of them has done. Very interesting!!!!
 
independentusa said:
I find it interesting that you always seem to defend both Trump AND the Russians no matter what either of them has done. Very interesting!!!!
Click to expand...

I haven't defended anybody.
 
Mycroft said:
There was no hacking. And you know this how? Did someone examine the Russian server and make a report?
Click to expand...


Concord is a Russian firm, they have, in their possession, the discovery material the whole purpose of which is a subterfuge to use the discovery material, alter it, leak it onlline as a disinformation campaign in an effort to discredit Mueller. Why? Because it helps their investment, Donald Trump. Why would Russia, who is doing a disinfo campaign, then, need to "hack" it if they already have it?


The only logical conclusion is that the "hacking", was invented to make it seem like Russians, who are engaged in disinformation campaign, are not engaged in a disinformation campaign that it was the fault of some rogue Russian hacking group. Besides, even if it were a "russian hacker", there is no such thing as rogue hackers from Russia when it comes to matters of Russia and Donald Trump.


That makes no sense, given who we are dealing with, a country who are masters of disinformation.
 
OscarLevant said:
Concord is a Russian firm, they have, in their possession, the discovery material the whole purpose of which is a subterfuge to use the discovery material, alter it, leak it onlline as a disinformation campaign in an effort to discredit Mueller. Why? Because it helps their investment, Donald Trump. Why would Russia, who is doing a disinfo campaign, then, need to "hack" it if they already have it?


The only logical conclusion is that the "hacking", was invented to make it seem like Russians, who are engaged in disinformation campaign, are not engaged in a disinformation campaign that it was the fault of some rogue Russian hacking group. Besides, even if it were a "russian hacker", there is no such thing as rogue hackers from Russia when it comes to matters of Russia and Donald Trump.


That makes no sense, given who we are dealing with, a country who are masters of disinformation.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a whole lot of speculation on your part.

Thanks, but I'll stick to facts.
 
Mach said:
What do they have to fear from the U.S., Trump's their boy, and 35% of our population are collaborators in that tryst.

They can do whatever they want, what's he gonna do, lift more sanctions to reward them?
Trump just got finished telling our U.S. intelligence agencies to go back to school...but he'll never speak bad about Putin/Russia. Not really a head-scratcher at this point.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's a good time to be Putin. AFAIK he's the only Russian leader that has his own pet POTUS.
 
JustHanging said:
Yeah, it's a good time to be Putin. AFAIK he's the only Russian leader that has his own pet POTUS.
Click to expand...

Obama is no longer in office.

Try to keep up with who PUTIN'S BITCH REALLY IS and always has been...starting with the "RESET BUTTON, and 20% of our uranium Reserves ( as in NUCLEAR WEAPONS)….and take it from there... through the CANCELLED European Missile Defense Shield, to appease Putin, the REFUSAL to sell arms to Ukraine, to appease Putin, openly deriding Romney, during the 2012 debates, for calling Russia a threat, getting caught secretly promising "more flexibility" to Putin, and then ordering our intel to STAND DOWN, and not interfere with Russian Meddling in 2016, and then TRYING TO BLAME IT ON TRUMP, when Hillary lost..all of which was done LONG BEFORE TRUMP WAS POTUS.

That clear it up for you?

Now, hurry back with the Standard DP Left Bull**** Reply, and claim that those EASILY VERIFIED EVENTS "didn't happen".
 
Mycroft said:
Again...



When I read that, this is what I understand:

1. Someone hacked a Russian server on which discovery information, given to Concord LLC lawyers by Mueller, was stored.

2. The hackers make some claims about this being "access to the Special Counsel Mueller’s probe database". I don't see how this is true, given the information in #1. All they have is the stuff Mueller gave to those lawyers.

3. I can certainly understand Mueller's concern that THEY might have gotten hacked, but as he says...it doesn't look like it.

Now...it seems Mueller wants to use this event as a reason to NOT provide more discovery material, as requested by defense lawyers. I think this is a good reason. However, the judge should base his remarks on the facts. If it's proven that the lawyers didn't take any kinds of precautions against getting hacked, the judge's remarks are reasonable. If it's not proven, then the judge is out of line.

The thing is, there is no indication that the lawyers had anything to do with the hack on their server or that they had anything to do with the use of the material by the hackers.

If I were the judge, I'd tell the lawyers that they won't be getting anymore discovery material until they satisfy me that they have taken effective steps to safeguard the material...and I'd leave it at that. Chastising the lawyers...without any indication that they were at fault...by the judge; I find that to be out of line and counter productive.
Click to expand...

Slight flaw in your argument...
In the discovery agreement with the Concord attorneys, the Concord attorneys agreed to the restrictions as noted in the response:


On June 29, 2018, this Court entered a protective order that included provisions restricting
the disclosure of material designated by the government as sensitive. Dkt. No. 42. The protective
order barred any individual or entity—including Concord officer Yevgeniy Prigozhin—other than
the U.S. defense team from accessing, sharing, or discussing sensitive discovery materials absent
the Court’s approval. Dkt. No. 42-1, ¶ 11. The order further required that sensitive discovery
materials be stored offline at the U.S. offices of Reed Smith LLP (“Reed Smith”) and not be
disclosed, transported, or transmitted outside the United States. Id. ¶¶ 14, 15, 18. The order also
required that any person reviewing sensitive materials must be accompanied at all times by a
designated and identified employee of a U.S. office of Reed Smith. Id. ¶ 15.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/01/30/2019-1-30concord.2.pdf Pages 2 and 3

The materials being stored in Russia is a direct violation of the courts order regardless of whether it was hacked..
 
Last edited:
Hmm...like how Mouthenatti managed to "obtain" Cohen's PERSONAL RECORDS, after they were seized by the Witch Hunt?


Now , the Grand Buffoon is GETTING PLAYED by the Russians he had hoped to convict in abstentia...embarrassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom