Mueller indictments not convictable

[KeithKSR]

The Russians that Rosenstein announced Mueller had indicted last Friday cannot be convicted with current evidence. The DNC has yet to turn over the servers to the FBI and without evidence the Russians cannot be convicted.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-server-to-fbi

Why did the DNC refuse to hand over the servers?

This may yield some clues: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-...ears-dnc-hack/

There is compelling evidence outlined in that article to indicate there was no hack, but a leak and that they emails were downloaded by someone inside the DNC while at a device attached to the DNC LAN.

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

DNC staffer Seth Rich was gunned down just after the “hack”. Police ruled it a botched robbery, but nothing was taken and there were no witnesses. What robber guns down a victims they can walk up to on a deserted street and demand their valuables from the individual? Rich was shot in the back, which makes the robbery story even more dubious.

Of interest to me was the report by Sean Hannity that Rich was the Wikileaks source. Hannity has interviewed Julian Assange, and I believe Assange could have been the source for the info.

Assange has always maintained that the Russians did not provide the DNC information to Wikileaks.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-34941263.html

[badrose]

somewhat related

https://sputniknews.com/science/2017...ssia-dnc-hack/

"We are not in a nuclear age anymore. There will not be another nuclear war because cyberwar is far more devastating. The tools will eventually be in the hands of hackers because this is what happens when you build weaponized software. The first time you use it you send a copy into the wild and every researcher in the world has a copy of that. It can then be duplicated and in a year from now, these tools will be sold on the dark web by 15-year-old boys for a hundred dollars," he explained.

[KeithKSR]

somewhat related

https://sputniknews.com/science/2017...ssia-dnc-hack/

"We are not in a nuclear age anymore. There will not be another nuclear war because cyberwar is far more devastating. The tools will eventually be in the hands of hackers because this is what happens when you build weaponized software. The first time you use it you send a copy into the wild and every researcher in the world has a copy of that. It can then be duplicated and in a year from now, these tools will be sold on the dark web by 15-year-old boys for a hundred dollars," he explained.

Mueller would have us to believe the FBI couldn't tell who hacked into Hillary's homebrew server, yet the Russians left clear evidence they hacked the DNC servers. That is not logical.