12 Russian Intelligence Officers Indicted for Hacking the Clinton Campaign
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said. [0]
[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/...
The fact that I can't find specific reference to an image being provided, just "forensics", would lead me to suspect that an image was not provided, as otherwise later clarification on this point would have been beneficial to some parties involved. Then again, maybe I'm just missing it.
If the individuals indicted ever stand for the crimes they are alleged to have committed, then we will see the evidence as it will be a public trial albeit with any evidence that will reveal national security secrets redacted from public view.
This is exactly how our justice system is supposed to work.
Since Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecutors have to turn over any potentially favorable evidence to the defense. The defense can of course ask to see the evidence in any criminal case.
In a civil case, as the defense counsel you would have a chance to review the evidence in the discovery phase.
Given that the FBI has examined it and has forensic images of it's disks. This statement is false.
Most likely if any of these cases move to trial, the FBI's forensic examiner will be called to testify as to what was found if it has relevant information and that is what will be entered into the record.
I would like to note that your phrasing sounds rather like a constructed talking point; intended to cast a frame on events with a favorable construction towards one party in this dispute.
I would remind all readers that HN is merely another social media forum and is thus equally susceptible to information operations and propaganda campaigns designed to lead it's influential audience down certain paths of thought and to avoid others.
Be aware of phrases that are intended to foster certain attitudes; especially as in this case one that seems designed to attribute mal-intent to the _victim_ of the crime.
>FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.
>Instead, whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.
Crowdstrike is not the FBI or any government agency. Do you have a source that proves a government agency examined the server or an image of the server? Because you seem awfully confident that the FBI has examined it.
Any leaks by Crowdstrike would be something the DNC could litigate, and would also greatly hurt Crowdstrike's reputation.
The FBI, on the other hand, does have some politics involved, and to my knowledge there wouldn't be much recourse for the DNC if the FBI were to leak confidential information they had access to from the investigation.
Even if there isn't extra information beyond what was already leaked, giving the FBI access allows for a specific narrative to be put forth in a leak, even if it's just insinuations through specifically crafted misinformation. The FBI having full access allows for bad actors within the organization to provide credence to any narrative they desire, since official communication of information about the case would be delayed and likely restrained.
To my mind, it makes perfect sense that the DNC would refuse FBI involvement in this instance, given the option (which they were).