Just in case you need some proof.

Interesting, if one cannot prove collusion .. add a wee bit of spin, and Wa La it becomes a conspiracy to 'conspire' to break into the DNC? 

The DNC 'leak / hack' is a conspiracy in and of itself - July 2017 the FBI should have gotten its chance to investigate the DNC email server thanks to the Mueller investigation.  Could not find anything that verified that the FBI did get their hands on the server though.

Could not find anything that verified that the FBI did get their hands on the server though.

Multiple cybersecurity companies have investigated the hacks and ALL of them agree that it was done by Russian hackers. The FBI was provided with ALL of the data, the forensics AND the peer review documentation. THAT is why there is NO need for Mueller to subpoena the server. 

Since on a good day I am barely capable of following installation instructions, my reading of the report was barely cogent. It is available online if you're better able to understand the techy stuff. 

Thanks

I read one report from Crowdstrike... I still have questions as to why the FBI was not allowed to investigate the server themselves, but it is what it is. 

I am skeptical of a lot of things, so me being skeptical here, is nothing unusual. 

Have to do a bit of digging when I get back to my computer, but I think I read that Mueller did subpoena the server .. do not know for sure 

I still have questions as to why the FBI was not allowed to investigate the server themselves, but it is what it is.

IMHO, if Mueller's team didn't think that the investigation was through enough or had any questions about the conclusion, he would have subpoenaed the server. He didn't. 

Fidelity Cybersecurity is another one of the companies that investigated and WERE NOT PAID by the DNC. [That one's for you XD]

Actually, it was purportedly turned over to the FBI, of course that was after Clinton minions deleted thousands of emails and then bleach bitted the remaining parts of the drive.

You're conflating servers XD. We are talking about the DNC server. 

But EVERYTHING was under a Congressional subpoena, and furthermore, as it was government emails, it was in fact GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and not//not Clintons.

False. EVERYTHING was NOT under subpoena. The subpoena is online. Go read it for yourself. Note the phrase 'work related' contained therein. 

And who exactly was to make that determination?

Wow, did you just admit that 'unbiased federal investigators' exist? I'm shocked. /s

The NARA regulates what documents are retained. Human beings determine what qualifies under statute. 

Unbiased federal investigators or DNC/campaign employees/contractors?

You're confusing servers again XD. The 'DNC/campaign employees/contractors' didn't have anything to do with Clinton's server while she was SoS. 

And why did the DNC not heed the advice of the feds when notified they were targeted by hackers?

What advice didn't they heed? 

And which of those companies are FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS and/or LAW ENFORCEMENT?

So now suddenly you trust the 'FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS and/or LAW ENFORCEMENT' who investigated Clinton's emails? Stop the presses. 

Multiple cybersecurity companies have investigated the hacks and ALL of them agree that it was done by Russian hackers.

And which of these Multiple cybersecurity companies were hired by the FBI to do this work?

Multiple cybersecurity companies have investigated the hacks and ALL of them agree that it was done by Russian hackers. The FBI was provided with ALL of the data, the forensics AND the peer review documentation. THAT is why there is NO need for Mueller to subpoena the server.

I have read through pages of tech / cybersecurity articles on the DNC server, although I have found input from other companies regarding the subject, Crowdstrike is the one that investigated and provided the FBI with the server information ... one of the reasons for this was that the FBI had Clinton under investigation,  so to release the server would have been handing the FBI all their information - thus being 'awkward'.  (However the DNC claims the FBI never asked .. hmmm?)

Even searching Fidelity Cybersecurity, I found nothing that indicates the said company had anything to do with the DNC server, nor the detection of Russian hacking.  I can provide several pages of interesting reading - but cannot find "Multiple cybersecurity companies have investigated the hacks and ALL of them agree that it was done by Russian hackers"

There is always the possibility that I have not asked the proper questions, thus not receiving all sources on the matter - it does happen...

And which of these Multiple cybersecurity companies were hired by the FBI to do this work?

I repeat:

IMHO, if Mueller's team didn't think that the investigation was through enough or had any questions about the conclusion, he would have subpoenaed the server. He didn't.

So now suddenly you trust the 'FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS and/or LAW ENFORCEMENT' who investigated Clinton's emails? Stop the presses.

Even searching Fidelity Cybersecurity, I found nothing that indicates the said company had anything to do with the DNC server, nor the detection of Russian hacking.

It's Fidelis Cybersecurity. My bad. 

IMHO, if Mueller's team didn't think that the investigation was through enough or had any questions about the conclusion, he would have subpoenaed the server. He didn't.

You mean the same team that turned out to be political hacks protecting a failed presidential candidate?

So I'll repeat:

Which of these Multiple cyber-security companies were hired by the FBI to do this work?

Multiple cyber-security companies were hired by the FBI to do this work?

If you don't trust the 'political hacks', why would you trust anyone that they hired? 

They are political hacks.  That is why both the Clinton email investigation and the Russian collusion investigation are in question.  Not that I expect you to know that.  

They are political hacks. That is why both the Clinton email investigation and the Russian collusion investigation are in question.

Which begs the question, why would you think it would be better if the cyber-investigation was paid for by those who you characterize as 'political hacks'?

Thanks again ... Fidelis did analyze the intrusion malware found by Crowdstrike and agreed with their findings - NO one else has seen nor analysed the server itself.

Glad we had this chat, after spending hours reading yesterday morning, and again this morning - I am more confident in my skepticism.  There is very lil (provable) evidence that Russia committed cyberespionage .. let alone evidence of collusion.  Is Mueller trying to put together a criminal case? or an impeachable offense? (which is strictly political, and has nothing to do with criminal findings)

Going to be interesting to watch continue to unfold - when does Comey testify again to tell all he knows? or did he leak his wad of info in order to trigger the special prosecutor?

They are political hacks.

The only political hacks I see are the administration and, the Republicans siding with the administration and, of course FOX Noise.

There is very lil (provable) evidence that Russia committed cyberespionage .. let alone evidence of collusion.

That isn't how I read the analysis and it's pretty clear that isn't how our intelligence agencies read it.

Is Mueller trying to put together a criminal case?

Yes. 

or an impeachable offense? (which is strictly political, and has nothing to do with criminal findings)

Yes since obstruction of justice, which is a crime, is an impeachable offense. 

Going to be interesting to watch continue to unfold - when does Comey testify again to tell all he knows?

Why would Comey have to testify again? I'm pretty sure that Mueller can just play excerpts of his Congressional testimony to a Grand Jury. 

or did he leak his wad of info in order to trigger the special prosecutor?

That would [wrongly] assume that Comey releasing his memos was a 'leak'. If THAT is true, why hasn't Sessions indicted him? WTF is he waiting for? Oh and if the memos were somehow marked 'confidential' in some way [they weren't], why the hell did multiple members of Congress READ them verbatim in OPEN session?

Seriously, neither they nor you can have it both ways. 

IMHO, the reason Comey released his memo was to show Trump that he had contemporaneous back up to document the events. Mueller and Comey have a history of such documentation. 

www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/washington/17inquire.html

You should take off the blinders.  

You should read the two new articles I've seeded.

wo new articles I've seeded.

Ok, come up with something other than MSN and I'll read.

Jeremy, the story's are from other sources if you bothered to look at the story you would see that, MSN posts story's online from sources like Reuters, the Hill, NBC, CBS, New York, Times, etc.

Again, come up with something other than MSN and I'll read.

OK, if you want to remain ignorant and, act that way go ahead, I have seeded the two articles and, they come from different sources but, you want to turn them away simply because they say "MSN" in the link and, not even look at them to see where they originated from, that is truly sad.

So you CAN'T find the same information anywhere else.  

MSNBC?  Seriously?

Yes, the words came out of the mans mouth, he is one of the people that were involved in impeaching Nixon, if anyone would know what to look for, it would be him. Accept it or, don't, I don't give a shit.

So we are right back to you can't find anything on a credible source.

No, we are right back to the FACT that you will not accept anything that is put up that even suggests Trump might be guilty of conspiracy. The story I posted in this seed, word for word, came from the Hill, it was put on MSN by that organization, if you cannot accept that then you are a fool. MSNBC is the news group owned by NBC and, is a credible source, whether you wish to believe it or, not, the words spoken by the ex-Watergate prosecutor on there are the same as the words in my article, if you cannot accept the words coming out of his mouth as evidence that what he said is in fact what was reported in the article I seeded then again, you are a fool or, you simply are trying to start some shit. So, why don't you get off of my seed and, go find someone else to troll.

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: The Hill is an American political journalism newspaper and website published in Washington, D.C. since 1994. It is published by Capitol Hill Publishing, which is owned by News Communications, Inc. Focusing on politics, policy, business and international relations, The Hill coverage includes the U.S. Congress, the presidency, and election campaigns. The Hill covers both sides on the political spectrum and generally sources information, however they sometimes rush stories and have to change them after the fact. Has a slightly left-center reporting bias. I want to clarify that The Hill is usually factual and should be trusted, but they do have a track record of trying to be the first to break political news and get burned sometimes, hence the Mixed factual rating. The Hill will correct mistakes and is a credible source that requires caution on breaking news only.(5/18/2016) Updated (4/26/2017)

mediabiasfactcheck

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political commentary from NBC News on current events. MSNBC has a left wing bias in reporting and wording. MSNBC has also made some false claims according to Politifact. (5/13/2016)
Update 7/29/2017: MSNBC has been hiring numerous conservative journalists, reporters and writers over the last year. MSNBC will be re-evaluated to determine if they have indeed moved more toward the right in reporting.

mediabiasfactcheck

you will not accept anything that is put up that even suggests Trump might be guilty of conspiracy.

What I won't accept is it coming from a leftist source.  Find one that is in the middle and I'll consider it.  

The Hill is about as in the middle as you are going to get. If you can't accept that then you aren't going to accept anything that I put up here. So, like I said, go troll somewhere else.

What I won't accept is it coming from a leftist source.

I don't care what you won't accept on my seed, get off and, don't come back.

Wa La

That's voila - LOL

"I think the big enchilada here is the conspiracy to break into the Democratic National Committee 

Seth Rich is now a russian?  LOL too damn funny.

the data transfer speeds prove it was a local hack... try again.

Let's try to educate you.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Central Intelligence Agency and others have concluded that the Russian government escalated its efforts from discrediting the U.S. election process to assisting President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign.
The intelligence assessment was presented to President Barack Obama on Thursday and will be briefed to Trump on Friday. Trump has rejected the broad intelligence community’s assessment that Russia staged cyber attacks during the election campaign to undermine Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Russia has rejected the hacking allegations.
“By October, it had become clear that the Russians were trying to help the Trump campaign,” said one official familiar with the full report speaking on the condition of anonymity because the complete version is Top Secret.
In some cases, one official said, the material followed what was called “a circuitous route” from the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, to Wikileaks in an apparent attempt to make the origins of the material harder to trace, a common practice used by all intelligence agencies, including U.S. ones.

time

If you are talking about the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks, then it was an inside job.  Assange has been claiming all along that the emails were given to him by someone FROM THE DNC, not from the Russians.  Besides, the Russians would have better use for them as leverage IF Hillary had become President and/or if the Democrats won the House and/or Senate rather than releasing them or handing them off to someone else.  The way everyone is portraying it is as if the Russians were book-smart rather than the street-smart they have always been.

The way everyone is portraying it is as if the Russians were book-smart rather than the street-smart they have always been.

Key word in this sentence is everyone, so, everyone who is involved in this investigation is wrong and, Trump and, tomwcraig are right, even though the EVIDENCE says otherwise, hmmmm, I think I'll go with the evidence.

The evidence actually points to Hillary and the DNC conspiring with the Russians, not Trump.  IF you have been paying attention, you would know that.

Remove the blinders and, you will see the evidence as it really is.

Are you referencing Uranium One?  That collusion claim, unlike the Trump-Russia claim, has proven to be bullshit numerous times.

Not that I expect you guys to know that or accept the rest of reality.

Here’s what we know so far about Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.c3f979d416d4

Doesn't look like it's nothing to me or Mueller's team.

Tick tock, deplorables.

And, here's another part of it, why are the Republican Senators looking to arrest the guy who blew the whistle on Russia? That's right, the Republican Senators what the DOJ to bring charges against Christopher Steele, the guy who blew the whistle on Russian interference in our elections.