Huh. Well, not my business to tell him how to write the story, but mentioning that you collaborated the other person’s points may be useful. “multiple sources agreed” is more useful than “one guy said”.
…step by step…
He’s dirty too. He has ties to Trump’s shyster lawyer, Cohen. Fuck him.
Length of Whitewater investigation - 6 years - witch hunt to “get” Clinton
Length of Watergate investigation - 2 years - while “certain people” said the country was weary of it every step of the way (I remember) - for Republican (Nixon) lying and obstruction of justice after Watergate break-in.
Length of Benghazi “investigations” - 4 years - witch hunt to get the other Clinton “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?” - Rep. Kevin McCarthy Fox News
So the complaint that Meuller is taking too long and wasting time (never mind the convictions, indictments and testimony he already got) is fucking bullshit lies. - considering that it s NOT about “collusion”. It is about conspiracy to commit reason to steal an election, and to sell the country to Putin.
“They” refer to that as the good old days.
That may mean McConnell is getting nervous (for himself). When Obama wanted to investigate Russian interference, it was McConnell who blocked it. Since Trump was “elected”, McConnell was one of his waterboys, interfering and diverting.
I think he himself is dirty as fuck too, or at the bare minimum, knew and deliberately looked the other way.
As for Nunez, maybe he is just too stupid to see things as they are, or is even dirtier, and this is his only hope to not go to prison.
P.S. Trump, “demanding” that the FBI and DOJ investigate the investigators (his enemies) is a constitutional crisis. He and his cronies are effectively saying fuck the law, fuck the constitution, we will use government for our own personal benefit and to crush enemies.
If there’s one thing you can’t accuse Trump of doing, it’s committing reason.
I am so stealing that…
“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!” It all makes sense, now.
In sum, you’re saying that the media got it wrong. (You’re also ignoring that one of the cites was to a legal blog.)
It’s not impossible that the media is wrong and you’re right. But absent some compelling reason to think so - which you’ve not offered at all - I’m going to go with the media on this one. Their job is to figure out which experts to quote and how to interpret their meaning etc. Again, they could be wrong, but there’s no reason to assume that just because you said so, WADR.
Mueller just dumped 2 TB of info on them.
We’re repeating ourselves here. At the time they made that announcement, it was widely thought that there was no risk of them having to back that up.
Again. He wasn’t inviting scrutiny. He was inviting headlines about how he’s out there busting Russians. Which is exactly what he got, until one of the companies unexpectedly hired a lawyer and challenged him. At that point he got some scrutiny, but that wasn’t what he was expecting at the time.
I don’t think social media profiles are necessarily innocuous. But having 2 TB of them is not a big deal. It’s not likely that Mueller has 2 TB of social media profiles each one of which is an different type of proof of guilt, such that when you add up that mountain of evidence you imagine it must be overwhelmingly compelling. It’s far more likely that all these profiles are the same type of evidence, and either there’s a satisfactory explanation for all of them or there’s a satisfactory explanation for none of them. So the fact that there’s 2 TB of them versus 500 KB does not add anything.
Basically Mueller has some evidence. OK. It’s not like he picked these guys out of a phone book. Whether the evidence is enough to convict remains to be seen, and we don’t really have any real indication to this point.
Chiming in as an eDiscovery analyst: The guy who actually does the social media collection as well as all other forms of electronic discovery.
Typically, when collecting social media, we’re basically just printing to a PDF. If that’s the case, each profile would only wind up being 10-30MB. That suggests that they have A LOT of downloaded profiles. Most likely fake account after fake account.
Downloading video is typically something that can’t be done automatically and is a more manual process. They could have been super detailed and download every video as well which would obviously increase the size of each profile.
If it were me, and I had to collect all this stuff, I’d probably argue for a process that PDFs the profiles and then download one copy of each video (they’re probably largely duplicative since they get shared between the accounts) into a repository that could be referenced.
As someone who has experience in FBI cases. Typcially when the government does a document production, they just had over everything they collected. For example, if the FBI seized 5 computers, you’ll get 5 disk images as a document production.
That differs from normal litigation during which you weed out all the non-responsive data and only hand over the data that’s responsive to the case. When dealing with the government, you have to go through all your stuff and only produce responsive docs to the government while they pretty much just dump stuff on you and you have to figure out what’s responsive in there as well.
I’m unclear on whether you’re disputing anything I’ve written, or if so, what.
Nope. Just adding some additional info from an informed perspective.
To contrast with F-P’s uninformed perspective.
Oh hell … “reason”.
I meant “treason”. Damn typos.
We can’t have that here. Post reported.
I’m a computer forensics guy. E-Discovery is something I try to avoid.
BTW, how do you capitalize eDiscovery at the beginning of a sentence? Whatever I do looks wrong.
Eh, I hate that title. While it describes the majority of our work, we do a lot of things outside of discovery, so I always found it lacking. If it were me, I’d choose something like E-Data even though that’s so vague as to be almost meaningless.
Whereabouts are you based? I’m in St. Louis. If our paths cross maybe we can refer work to each other.
(Would’ve PMed you but looks like you have PMs off.)
You do not. You spell it as-is. iPhone, for example, is spelled the same at the beginning of a sentence as it is elsewhere, because “IPhone” is simply wrong.
Well, it only took a few pages, but you are coming around. I consider it progress!
No shit we don’t have any real indication at this point. That’s what the trial is for. We are all just speculating. Which is why your belief that Mueller was taken by surprise, or is desperate for more time, or still needs to “get his act together”, is devoid of real credence.
If it goes to trial, we shall see what he has…
(Here is the court docket. I’m not sure if people will get to see it, since I had to log in to look up the case).
Now that I look at it, there is no trial date set. This is clearly an outlier of a case, so the court is asking the parties for a schedule to indicate deadlines for “pretrial motions” (a motion is a request of the court; pretrial motions address admissibility and disclosure of evidence; that’s the time when people seek to suppress search warrants or complain about an improper Miranda warning). Here’s the latest ‘minute order’ (dated today, actually):
The aforementioned joint motion, by the way, was granted May 23rd. The next day, the court also granted an unopposed motion for the Defendants for an extension of time to file a Bill of Particulars (this is a filing that requests more detail as to the allegations; what, specifically, did we do, and when?). This is all standard stuff.
Finally, for anybody interested, the charges are (forgive the awkward spacing as I am just cutting and pasting):
Defendant (1)
INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC
also known as
MEDIASINTEZ LLC
also known as
GLAVSET LLC
also known as
MIXINFO LLC
also known as
AZIMUT LLC
also known as
NOVINFO LLC
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
18:1349; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK AND WIRE FRAUD; Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud
(2)
18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft
(3-8)
Defendant (2)
CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (3)
CONCORD CATERING
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (4)
YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (5)
MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (6)
MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK
also known as
MIKHAIL ABRAMOV
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (7)
ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (8)
ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (9)
SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (10)
MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA
also known as
MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BELYAEVA
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (11)
ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (12)
DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV
also known as
JAYHOON ASLANOV
also known as
JAY ASLANOV
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
18:1349; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK AND WIRE FRAUD; Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud
(2)
18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft
(3-8)
Defendant (13)
VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
Defendant (14)
GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO
Disposition
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
18:1349; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK AND WIRE FRAUD; Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud
(2)
18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft
(3-8)
Defendant (15)
IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft
(3-8)
Defendant (16)
VLADIMIR VENKOV
Pending Counts
18:371; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
(1)
18:1028A(a)(1) and 2; FRAUD WITH IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS; Aggravated Identity Theft
(3-8)