Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1014143657115561984

Just a reminder in all the noise that House GOP hasn't released a transcript of FBI Agent Peter Strzok's testimony, despite his attorney's repeated calls to do so. For people who have been so vocal about "transparency," they certainly like keeping a lot of secrets.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

"Wow! The NSA has deleted 685 million phone calls and text messages. Privacy violations? They blame technical irregularities. Such a disgrace. The Witch Hunt continues!"

 

[plague311]

Trump Tweets

"Wow! The NSA has deleted 685 million phone calls and text messages. Privacy violations? They blame technical irregularities. Such a disgrace. The Witch Hunt continues!"

Does anyone have some context? I can't find much. They deleted them in general or deleted them from an investigation?

ETA: The ending "witch hunt" is what's confusing me. Did they delete them related to his investigation?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump should continue pissing off the Intelligence Agencies - no way that could backfire.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Does anyone have some context? I can't find much. They deleted them in general or deleted them from an investigation?

ETA: The ending "witch hunt" is what's confusing me. Did they delete them related to his investigation?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Who can tell. He probably dreamed it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Does anyone have some context? I can't find much. They deleted them in general or deleted them from an investigation?

ETA: The ending "witch hunt" is what's confusing me. Did they delete them related to his investigation

Here is some context:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/03/trump-nsa-data-collection-692609
The NSA announced late last month that it was deleting improperly collected phone and text message records that date back as far as 2015, according to The Associated Press. The agency blamed “technical irregularities” for the unauthorized collection of data.

So it looks like the NSA was supposed to collect data X, they somehow collected data X+data Y, and now they're deleting the improperly collected Data Y records. Probably no relation to the Trump investigation, and the "which hunt" statement at the end was just another attempt by Trump to smear the investigation. I think Trump is simply trying to make U.S. government intelligence agencies look bad if/when the Mueller investigation gets closer to him or his family, because he can say "I'm falsely accused! Look how out of control these agents are! They're spying on everything!"

 

[rwguinn]

Two terabytes of information in Russian.

No problem!

How do you say hide needle in a field of haystacks in Russian?

How do you know the translation wasn't biased if you don't get it in the original language.
(If i still carried a security clearance, under the law I should probably report contact with you and your ilk)

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[The Big Dog]

How do you know the translation wasn't biased if you don't get it in the original language.
(If i still carried a security clearance, under the law I should probably report contact with you and your ilk)

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

My ilk?

Hope the law firm has some Russian speakers on staff, because they can't show it to their clients.

"Print the whole internet in Russian and give it to them, that will them the US Government is serious about, um, protecting the uhhh "rights" to criminal discovery."

 

[plague311]

My ilk?

Hope the law firm has some Russian speakers on staff, because they can't show it to their clients.

"Print the whole internet in Russian and give it to them, that will them the US Government is serious about, um, protecting the uhhh "rights" to criminal discovery."

Yeah, because such thing as translation software doesn't exist in TBD's world. So you have to make everything sound like it's an insurmountable task that defensive counsel shouldn't have to undergo. They're the ones that posted it in the first place, now you're whining because it's not translated? How about they just ask their clients to provide them all of the information since they'll need it at trial anyway?

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump should continue pissing off the Intelligence Agencies - no way that could backfire.

You say that like it's a one-way street. But it isn't. It never was.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/1...gence-agencies-treated-president-trump-574591

"“So let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes,” Morell said. “What does he see? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden … criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, ‘What’s going on with these intelligence guys?’”

Morell continued: “Then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing after becoming the Republican nominee. And within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.”

Morell said it’s no wonder President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies (which employ countless Obama holdovers even at the upper levels), given the constant press leaks and withering public condemnations from current and former officials."

The intelligence community's own hostility to Trump has already backfired.

 

[acbytesla]

Ask? Is there any reason at all Mueller wouldn't tell them? I can't imagine why he wouldn't. It also wouldn't be tough to get a tech guy to look at it.

That's the point of a data dump. Mueller is required to present the evidence to the defense in discovery. I don't know if he is required to tell the defense what is relevant and what it all means. So he hands over the 2 TB to the defense and says 'have at it'.

Ok. I can't imagine why that would be true because it would require the people providing the data to go through extra steps of stripping the data of fields. At best I guess they'd claim it could give away trade secrets. I digress though, even if that's the case what else would you need? This isn't the only data he was going to provide, they said this was the beginning of the data he was to provide. If they're lawyers for a company, I'd assume they'd cross reference those dates and names with their employees and their records. That's not really a tough thing to do considering the technology we have available.

Nope, not hard it all. Almost all databases have export and import tools. And even if they dont, there are third party tools available.
And there is unlikely to be any real trade secrets

Ok, searchable in the way pretty much every single csv/database file is searchable? I haven't found one that isn't. It's comma separated into different fields. Which in this case we know it would have to contain at least 3 different fields: Date, Name, and the content of the post. How granular is needed?

There are many other ways to separate fields, csv is just one of them. That's the point. They can look for people or dates only if they know the precise people or dates fthey are looking for.

It's data for discovery. You should know what you're looking for from a database that's csv or a database file. Is the implication that the prosecutor has to tell you what to do look for? Do they do that with other evidence? I'm a bit confused here.

I don't think they have to. But I could be wrong.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump pissed on the IC long before he even became a nominee.


RE: NSA deleting data/Trump
The NSA wouldn't be involved in any wiretap on Trump tower - that would be between the FBI, a FISA court and the telecom provider.
The NSA would screen for phone conversations to other countries which contain critical keywords: it is quite possible that some Russians/Turks/Azerbaijanians called home talking about a deal they were having with Trump, which the NSA would have recorded if it was suspicious, particularly with regards to money laundering. But these the NSA would keep even after this discovery.

 

[Crossbow]

You say that like it's a one-way street. But it isn't. It never was.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/1...gence-agencies-treated-president-trump-574591

"“So let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes,” Morell said. “What does he see? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden … criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, ‘What’s going on with these intelligence guys?’”

Morell continued: “Then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing after becoming the Republican nominee. And within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.”

Morell said it’s no wonder President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies (which employ countless Obama holdovers even at the upper levels), given the constant press leaks and withering public condemnations from current and former officials."

The intelligence community's own hostility to Trump has already backfired.

If I may chime in ...

I think that what 'The Great Zaganza' is trying to say is that if a president (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) goes around denigrating intelligence agencies, then the people in the intelligence agencies know how to hurt the president in question through the use of carefully planted news leaks that cannot be traced back to their source.

After all, there are quite a few people in intelligence work who are rather skilled in the distribution of sensitive data without leaving their fingerprints on it.

I hope this helps.

 

[theprestige]

Trump pissed on the IC long before he even became a nominee.

I'm sure all of us have had occasion to disparage the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, et al at one point or another. Trump disparaging the US intelligence committee as a private citizen is not something that should be held against him, in my opinion. Especially not by the intelligence agencies themselves.

Or is this another one of those standards we invent specifically for Trump, and then discard?

 

[Ziggurat]

If I may chime in ...

I think that what 'The Great Zaganza' is trying to say is that if a president (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) goes around denigrating intelligence agencies, then the people in the intelligence agencies know how to hurt the president in question through the use of carefully planted news leaks that cannot be traced back to their source.

That is true. But there seems to be a presumption that they wouldn't do that if Trump didn't attack them. And I don't think that's true. Trump's hostility to the intelligence agencies didn't come out of nowhere. He has good reason to not trust them.

Furthermore, in a power struggle between the president and the intelligence agencies, it's the president who should win. Anything else is deeply undemocratic.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That is true. But there seems to be a presumption that they wouldn't do that if Trump didn't attack them. And I don't think that's true. Trump's hostility to the intelligence agencies didn't come out of nowhere. He has good reason to not trust them.

Furthermore, in a power struggle between the president and the intelligence agencies, it's the president who should win. Anything else is deeply undemocratic.

I don't think he does have a good reason.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think he does have a good reason.

I think there are plenty of good reasons that we all, Donald Trump included, have to distrust the intelligence community

 

[CapelDodger]

That's the point of a data dump. Mueller is required to present the evidence to the defense in discovery. I don't know if he is required to tell the defense what is relevant and what it all means. So he hands over the 2 TB to the defense and says 'have at it'.

As I understand it, the Mueller team can only finalise the prosecution case after they've examined the data. When the final prosecution case is presented to the defence it'll reference what's relevant.

 

[CapelDodger]

That is true. But there seems to be a presumption that they wouldn't do that if Trump didn't attack them. And I don't think that's true. Trump's hostility to the intelligence agencies didn't come out of nowhere. He has good reason to not trust them.

When did the intelligence agencies first give Trump a good reason not to trust them? And what did they do?

Furthermore, in a power struggle between the president and the intelligence agencies, it's the president who should win. Anything else is deeply undemocratic.

A President as vulnerable as Trump couldn't win if the intelligence agencies turned on him. So far they've acted entirely properly.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't think he does have a good reason.

Neither do I. There's an obvious reason why Trump claims that they're all against him, of course, and it rhymes with Hushya.