User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 1:52:17 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well most of the time there is supposed to be an act of good faith on the part of those being sanctioned before they get relief for the bad acts committed. Talking sanctions relief would be appropriate after they withdraw from Crimea and Donbass. Nothing suspect about Trump wanting to give them sanctions relief in return for well, nothing apparently.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 1:55:02 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If only there was a way for the government to seize items which are thought to be relevant to of evidence of a crime! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What we are certain of is that our magnificent FBI was never allowed to examine the servers that were allegedly "hacked". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 1:59:04 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If only there was a way for the government to seize items which are thought to be relevant to of evidence of a crime! One might be forgiven for wondering why this glaring oversight hasn't been rectified during the last 200 years or so. I propose that Congress make provision for this by passing a statute. We can call it seizure pursuant to a warrant.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 1:59:29 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, is Russia a threat to America, or is it not? GWB is noted for his sagacity. He would not have described Vlad that way if he was a threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:00:54 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I am shocked that the FBI that was run by Democrats didn't seize the server's owned by the DNC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:02:01 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reminder: The conclusions of the ONI report have also been accepted by Trump's IC heads. Occasionally by Trump, too. Plus you've got the Republicans and Democrats who have seen the classified version of the report who have all accepted the report's conclusions. It's a fucking joke. No facts, all speculation. Confidence levels, but don't provide facts to back up their conclusions. No citations. It's reads like a report put together by a 6th grader who's about to get an F . The only facts they tried to provide relate to news stories on RT. Get the fuck out of here, no one gives a shit about that. Why is it all one sided too? We now know the Clinton's/DNC paid surrogates who used Russian sources to create a dossier loaded with false information to harm Trump, and said surrogates had a relationship with a Russian operative who appeared to try to set up Trumps campaign with breaking the law in a bait an switch meeting. Yet nothing even hinting at it is in this report? Why do they make judgements about reporting on Clinton, using words like "denigrate" suggesting unfair criticism? I have to wonder if these people feel the same way about conservative news sources, etc. I bet they do. Why did they assume to know what Putin is thinking, wtf? To start with, how many of them are smart enough to read through the lines and identify the bullshit? Then how many are swampers? What are they all supposed to say, that our IC has been politically compromised and is lying to us? Yeah, that would go over well. It's not like they have their own agencies and facts to refute the claims. Oh and remember their claims are just like, their opinion man. They don't claim them to be factual. Then you have the negative ramifications to our IC and our nation because of that revelation. Yeah, no surprise everyone's busy just trying to save face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:03:02 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best of luck getting a federal judge to sign a search warrant for the premises of a uncooperative victim of a crime - especially when the victim's cooperation is required to even determine that a crime occurred and where the evidence is located. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:03:22 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Under what legal authority are they seizing the server? Assume for the argument they don't pull a "Training Day" and wave around a Chinese menu. Is this some kind of joke? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:04:36 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best of luck getting a federal judge to sign a search warrant for the premises of a uncooperative victim of a crime - especially when the victim's cooperation is required to even determine that a crime occurred and where the evidence is located. 
Here are the magic words: It's a matter of national security, judge! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:07:15 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
National Security. Is this some kind of joke? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:08:44 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, what's this whole investigation about collusion and bringing up the hack all about then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:12:00 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right now I'm just narrowly focused on this magical legal vehicle that would have allowed the FBI to seize the DNC server from an uncooperative victim. The rest of us know how the government could have obtained the evidence. We also know why it did not do so. It's called collusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:13:00 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep pondering. The rest of us know how the government could have obtained the evidence. We also know why it did not do so. It's called collusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:14:06 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right now I'm just narrowly focused on this magical legal vehicle that would have allowed the FBI to seize the DNC server from an uncooperative victim. Really, you are going to suggest that their hands were tied because the victim was uncooperative? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:15:44 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, so you don't think they could seize a server if they wanted, that is claimed to be hacked by a foreign enemy power, a server which is owned by a political party, which contains communications and documents by congressmen. Many of which have varying security clearances. Whom have in recent times, been known to play fast and loose with classified material. Really, you are going to suggest that their hands were tied because the victim was uncooperative? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:20:15 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, so you don't think they could seize a server if they wanted, that is claimed to be hacked by a foreign enemy power, a server which is owned by a political party, which contains communications and documents by congressmen. Many of which have varying security clearances. Whom have in recent times, been known to play fast and loose with classified material. Really, you are going to suggest that their hands were tied because the victim was uncooperative? A non-cooperating victim in this case means you lose the most applicable federal charge (18 USC 1030) plus you don't have any way to establish the physical location of the items you wish to search. ETA: |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:30:39 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best of luck getting a federal judge to sign a search warrant for the premises of a uncooperative victim of a crime - especially when the victim's cooperation is required to even determine that a crime occurred and where the evidence is located. It strikes me as unimaginable that "uncooperative victims" are somehow confined to the mundane halls of state level prosecuions. IME seizing evidence of a crime, wherever located, even in the hands of a "victim" is neither a unique or difficult aw enforcement challenge. Cases proceed every day whith "uncooperative victims." The question is whether the state has an interest in obtaining evidence of criminal activity, and in this case alleged criminal activity by an outside governmental entity. If that were true, my assumption is that the FBI would and should have a fairly intense interest in obtaining any and all evidence of said criminal behavior and act accordingly. Based on these assumptions I do not think "good luck" would be required. One would need the will to act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 2:51:32 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. A non-cooperating victim in this case means you lose the most applicable federal charge (18 USC 1030) plus you don't have any way to establish the physical location of the items you wish to search. ETA: |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:03:33 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well most of the time there is supposed to be an act of good faith on the part of those being sanctioned before they get relief for the bad acts committed. Talking sanctions relief would be appropriate after they withdraw from Crimea and Donbass. Nothing suspect about Trump wanting to give them sanctions relief in return for well, nothing apparently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:04:28 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you agree with Trump on Russian sanctions? Good to know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:06:06 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right now I'm just narrowly focused on this magical legal vehicle that would have allowed the FBI to seize the DNC server from an uncooperative victim. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, what's this whole investigation about collusion and bringing up the hack all about then?  You mean a warrant?
You can't at the same time have the hacking of the DNC server being pivotal to your believe of collusion that has to be investigated by a special prosecutor and not have the very systems be evidence thereof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:06:35 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Under what legal authority are they seizing the server? Assume for the argument they don't pull a "Training Day" and wave around a Chinese menu. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And I am shocked that the FBI that was run by Democrats didn't seize the server's owned by the DNC. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:06:58 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. A non-cooperating victim in this case means you lose the most applicable federal charge (18 USC 1030) plus you don't have any way to establish the physical location of the items you wish to search. ETA: "We'll have to let Russia go Danno... It will never stick in court. The victim is uncooperative." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:13:47 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best of luck getting a federal judge to sign a search warrant for the premises of a uncooperative victim of a crime - especially when the victim's cooperation is required to even determine that a crime occurred and where the evidence is located. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best of luck getting a federal judge to sign a search warrant for the premises of a uncooperative victim of a crime - especially when the victim's cooperation is required to even determine that a crime occurred and where the evidence is located. (c) Persons or Property Subject to Search or Seizure. A
warrant may be issued for any of the following: (1) evidence of a crime; (2) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed; (3) property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime; or (4) a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:23:26 PM EST
[#25]
I'll remember if I ever report a crime, and get a subpoena, B_S says I can tell the court to fuck right off, cause I'm a victim
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:32:44 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Under what legal authority are they seizing the server? Assume for the argument they don't pull a "Training Day" and wave around a Chinese menu. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And I am shocked that the FBI that was run by Democrats didn't seize the server's owned by the DNC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:36:43 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What? That strikes me as ludicrous. IME, which, as stated, is as a nothingburger country chicken lawyer, judges do and can sign search warrants for evidence in an "uncooperative" victim's possession. It strikes me as unimaginable that "uncooperative victims" are somehow confined to the mundane halls of state level prosecuions. IME seizing evidence of a crime, wherever located, even in the hands of a "victim" is neither a unique or difficult aw enforcement challenge. Cases proceed every day whith "uncooperative victims." The question is whether the state has an interest in obtaining evidence of criminal activity, and in this case alleged criminal activity by an outside governmental entity. If that were true, my assumption is that the FBI would and should have a fairly intense interest in obtaining any and all evidence of said criminal behavior and act accordingly. Based on these assumptions I do not think "good luck" would be required. One would need the will to act. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Best of luck getting a federal judge to sign a search warrant for the premises of a uncooperative victim of a crime - especially when the victim's cooperation is required to even determine that a crime occurred and where the evidence is located. It strikes me as unimaginable that "uncooperative victims" are somehow confined to the mundane halls of state level prosecuions. IME seizing evidence of a crime, wherever located, even in the hands of a "victim" is neither a unique or difficult aw enforcement challenge. Cases proceed every day whith "uncooperative victims." The question is whether the state has an interest in obtaining evidence of criminal activity, and in this case alleged criminal activity by an outside governmental entity. If that were true, my assumption is that the FBI would and should have a fairly intense interest in obtaining any and all evidence of said criminal behavior and act accordingly. Based on these assumptions I do not think "good luck" would be required. One would need the will to act. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. ETA: I think this post also answers the 5-6 previous posts, too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:39:33 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My comment was in the context of the DNC breach - not all crime everywhere. My statement would be different if someone found a dead body stuffed into the DNC broom closet. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:43:31 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My comment was in the context of the DNC breach - not all crime everywhere. My statement would be different if someone found a dead body stuffed into the DNC broom closet. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. ETA: I think this post also answers the 5-6 previous posts, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:43:47 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're saying the FBI and CAI only have compelling interest in investigating espionage if there is a solid case to be made in an eventual court proceeding? "We'll have to let Russia go Danno... It will never stick in court. The victim is uncooperative." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yup. A non-cooperating victim in this case means you lose the most applicable federal charge (18 USC 1030) plus you don't have any way to establish the physical location of the items you wish to search. ETA: "We'll have to let Russia go Danno... It will never stick in court. The victim is uncooperative." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:44:01 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My comment was in the context of the DNC breach - not all crime everywhere. My statement would be different if someone found a dead body stuffed into the DNC broom closet. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. ETA: I think this post also answers the 5-6 previous posts, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
My comment was in the context of the DNC breach - not all crime everywhere. My statement would be different if someone found a dead body stuffed into the DNC broom closet. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. ETA: I think this post also answers the 5-6 previous posts, too. Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach. There's your probable cause. DNC admitted a crime occurred in June of 2016. But of course the real question is why would you even need to subpoena these servers? Doesn't the DNC want to protect this country from foreign collusion?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:44:34 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So then you are stating there is and will be no evidence of Russian hacking of the servers and this line of BS should be dropped? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My comment was in the context of the DNC breach - not all crime everywhere. My statement would be different if someone found a dead body stuffed into the DNC broom closet. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. ETA: I think this post also answers the 5-6 previous posts, too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:50:14 PM EST
[#33]
50 U.S. Code § 1861
(a) Application for order; conduct of investigation generally (1) Subject to paragraph (3), the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. It's laughable to think they had no power to confiscate the server. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:53:22 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Washington Post Article from June 2016 There's your probable cause. DNC admitted a crime occurred in June of 2016. But of course the real question is why would you even need to subpoena these servers? Doesn't the DNC want to protect this country from foreign collusion? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My comment was in the context of the DNC breach - not all crime everywhere. My statement would be different if someone found a dead body stuffed into the DNC broom closet. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. ETA: I think this post also answers the 5-6 previous posts, too. Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach. There's your probable cause. DNC admitted a crime occurred in June of 2016. But of course the real question is why would you even need to subpoena these servers? Doesn't the DNC want to protect this country from foreign collusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:54:08 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
50 U.S. Code § 1861
(a) Application for order; conduct of investigation generally (1) Subject to paragraph (3), the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. It's laughable to think they had no power to confiscate the server. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 3:57:25 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My comment was based on what the FBI knew in the summer of 2016. Nice try, though 
I didn't realize we were having a conversation fifteen months ago. I'll go update my calendars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:02:47 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't realize we were having a conversation fifteen months ago. I'll go update my calendars. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My comment was based on what the FBI knew in the summer of 2016. Nice try, though
I didn't realize we were having a conversation fifteen months ago. I'll go update my calendars. If the DNC told the FBI sometime between now and then that they were the victim of data breach then we're off to the races for any subsequent criminal charges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:03:20 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My predictions of Trump being full of shit based on his past actions of being full of shit have been quite spot on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah it is pretty hilarious that here we are 5 years later and he's still full of shit.  No they haven't 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:04:47 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We're talking about the FBI's ability (or lack thereof) to get a federal search warrant in the summer of 2016. I don't see the problem limiting the scope of this particular discussion to what they knew then. If the DNC told the FBI sometime between now and then that they were the victim of data breach then we're off to the races for any subsequent criminal charges. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My comment was based on what the FBI knew in the summer of 2016. Nice try, though
I didn't realize we were having a conversation fifteen months ago. I'll go update my calendars. If the DNC told the FBI sometime between now and then that they were the victim of data breach then we're off to the races for any subsequent criminal charges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:06:13 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@Top_Secret I asked in another thread. You have the logos for CW. Did you participate in the activities or stand in the parking lot, taking pictures of license plates? I would wager that he would give up his gun rights in exchange to bring down trump Sad! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:06:27 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same FBI that informed the DNC that their servers had been hacked? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My comment was based on what the FBI knew in the summer of 2016. Nice try, though
I didn't realize we were having a conversation fifteen months ago. I'll go update my calendars. If the DNC told the FBI sometime between now and then that they were the victim of data breach then we're off to the races for any subsequent criminal charges. ETA: Still wouldn't satisfy either of the two prongs I mentioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:10:24 PM EST
[#42]
I'm imagining if some of these...novel...legal theories had been used to execute a search warrant at the RNC in the summer of 2016. We'd all be cool with that, right? There wouldn't be PMAG covers littering the floor all across Arf-land?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:10:58 PM EST
[#43]
Time for one Of_Them to post another tweet or article from a laughably biased source to deflect the conversation away from the "they can't seize the server" ass-beating.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:13:06 PM EST
[#44]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:18:03 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're putting classified signals intelligence / human intelligence into a criminal search warrant affadavit? Ballsy. ETA: Still wouldn't satisfy either of the two prongs I mentioned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're putting classified signals intelligence / human intelligence into a criminal search warrant affadavit? Ballsy. ETA: Still wouldn't satisfy either of the two prongs I mentioned. DNC officials, though, made clear the organization was working with the FBI last summer to boot the Russian hackers from its computer systems.
“The DNC has been in regular contact with the FBI for many months and the FBI confirmed the DNC has provided all the information it needed to make its assessment,” said Watson, the DNC spokeswoman. And they at some point got a copy of the image from CrowdStrike, but still had no information that the DNC had been hacked? ETA: Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:18:08 PM EST
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:20:37 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure. Now all you've got to do is get those anonymous "DNC Officials" to make their statements to the FBI and get them to tell you the precise physical location of the server(s). Other than those two hurdles -which is where you were when you started- you're almost there! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:22:57 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not that hard to find a server that's not behind a proxy, and I doubt the DNC was behind a proxy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sure. Now all you've got to do is get those anonymous "DNC Officials" to make their statements to the FBI and get them to tell you the precise physical location of the server(s). Other than those two hurdles -which is where you were when you started- you're almost there! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:24:21 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm imagining if some of these...novel...legal theories had been used to execute a search warrant at the RNC in the summer of 2016. We'd all be cool with that, right? There wouldn't be PMAG covers littering the floor all across Arf-land? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:24:35 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My comment was in the context of the DNC breach - not all crime everywhere. My statement would be different if someone found a dead body stuffed into the DNC broom closet. In the broadest sense, what are the two things required for a criminal search warrant? Probable cause that a crime occurred, and probable cause that the evidence of said crime is in a particular place. In the summer of 2016, the FBI would have had trouble satisfying both of those requirements. An element of the most applicable federal law violation - 18 USC 1030 - is that the access was "unauthorized" or the user "exceeded authorized access". How are we showing that without a cooperative victim? No crime. No search warrant. But let's assume for a minute that the FBI somehow finds PC of a federal law violation. How is the FBI going to determine exactly where the DNC server(s) are located without the DNC cooperating? Are they physically located inside the DNC offices? Across the hall at the DCCC? Hosted on Amazon AWS? A private data center in Chantilly, VA? Or maybe in Maryland someplace? Well crap - we can't even establish which federal district has venue! Which federal judge are we standing in front of for all this, again? So, for anyone saying "They could have gotten a warrant!" you'd have to show how the FBI could have satisfied the two prongs I mentioned above. Bonus points if you can come up with something that wouldn't have everyone at Arfcom flipping out if the search warrant was executed on the RNC in mid 2016. ETA: I think this post also answers the 5-6 previous posts, too. Also pretty sure that a modest amount of basic police work could establish the location of the servers most ricky-tic. When a victim says a crime occurred the that establishes probable cause. Location of the physical servers? Police work. Real basic stuff. My experience with warrants for electronic thingies and stuffings would suggest none of this is as difficult as you believe. Again, one must have the will to act on the information that a hostile government has gained access to the political database of one of out two major parties. Seems like the sort of thing that would be worth looking into. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File