Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
100% certain because...you have seen some evidence?
Or 100% certain because you want it to be true?
Welp in the court filing that the link points to team Mueller explicitly states that their conclusion is based on a draft copy of a redacted CrowdStrike report. Team Mueller also claims in the filing that they aren’t required to prove the Russians hacked the DNC server being the Wikileaks source in the Stone case. CrowdStrike is a cyber security firm the DNC hired to determine what happened. The DNC denied access to the FBI to perform the analysis. These are all facts and they’re not in dispute.
Now it is pretty clear why the DNC might prefer a firm like CrowdStrike vs the FBI. It is also quite clear that team Mueller based their determination on the redacted CrowdStrike report. Whether that alone would stand up in a trial of Russian hackers seems pretty far fetched to me without CrowdStrike actually having to testify. The redacted version is probably proprietary DNC info. Of course team Mueller knew that the indictments of the Russians would never result in trials because they were never would be extradited.
Whether the Stone defense team has a valid legal argument is a tbd. What I would like to see is the determination by team Mueller stand up to the adversarial process in a court of law. Don’t know if we’ll get that in the Stone case. Probably not but maybe.
Regarding classified info and discovery. One of the reasons that the GWB wanted to try Gitmo detainees in military tribunals instead of US criminal courts was that the defendants discovery options were more limited in a tribunal. FWIW the US govt is not up for providing classified info that is discoverable in criminal cases.
Why are you opposed to having the team Mueller conclusions undergo the adversarial process in a court of law anyway?
Last edited by adios; 06-18-2019 at 05:15 PM.