7 ms·

"The leaks definitely came from GRU hackers" [citation needed]

kolanos 4y ago
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  If I’m ever murdered, I hope the FBI isn’t forced to hand over the contents of my private laptop to random strangers who file FOIA requests. This whole thing is despicable and you should be ashamed.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    It was his DNC laptop and governments have some discretion in FOIA requests.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      The DNC is not a governmental organization. Would you like your business laptop subject to FOIA just because the FBI investigated a crime against you?
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        I would be 100% ok with it. I have never put anything on a business laptop that would be embarrassing. My company might care, but why would I?
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        What if it's your startup? What if the FBI seized a personal laptop of yours? Should that be subject to FOIA requests by anyone who wants it? The Fourth Amendment rights against government seizure of your property should also extend to giving that property to random yahoos who can fill a form out.
      - pksebben 4y ago
        at the risk of tying my horse to the epoch times (which I am not trying to do), I think it should be pointed out that the DNC and RNC being in a separate category of scrutiny from government agencies is utter horseshit. If we lived in a world where a third party had a fighting chance, fine, but these institutions are literally deciding who we get to vote for.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        If you wanna make a "the RNC and DNC are subject to FOIA" rule, fine. This isn't how you accomplish it. It wasn't an investigation of the DNC; it was an investigation of Rich's murder, of which there's zero evidence of DNC involvement. A standard of "if you're the victim of a crime, your personal info is fair game to anyone who wants it" would be a very, very dangerous precedent to set.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    What if you were murdered under suspicious circumstances and the powers that be were covering it up? (Not saying that is what is happening here, just a hypothetical.)
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      "We're murderers, but we draw the line at violating the FOIA" seems like an unlikely scenario.
- thedorkknight 4y ago
  Why on earth is this website asking me who I voted for before letting me read an article? Why does the headline make it sound like the FBI wants the documents sealed for 66 years rather than accurately conveying that they'll be release the documents at 500 pages per month, and that therefore it will mathematically take 66 years? >If Mazzant upholds his order, the FBI wants a lengthy period of time to perform the work—66 years, or 500 pages a month. Oh, it's the Epoch times... I guess that answers both questions
  - greyhair 4y ago
    Yup. Exactly.Epoch times. Slightly less reliable than the National Inquirer.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    There are FOIA statutes that require federal, state and local governments to release documents and other data in the public interest in a reasonable amount of time. In this case, the statute gives the FBI 14 days. Limiting the release of documents to 500 per month to make the process take 66 years start to finish (IMO) is a violation of this statute. And there are tools the government has to automatically scrub documents of potentially sensitive information and these tools can run at a clip far higher than 500 documents a month. And so far, this district judge appears to agree. If I could find any other publication covering this court case I would have provided the link. Similarly, the FDA has asked a court for 55 years to respond to a FOIA request for COVID vaccine data. Assume you won't object to this source. [0] [0]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants...
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      State and federal governments arguing "it's really hard and expensive so you shouldn't make us do it" is the default response to pretty much any FOIA request. This instance isn't special.
      - 4y ago
- greyhair 4y ago
  Nice. Epochtimes link. Total rag of a site. And everyone knows it.
- ratg13 4y ago
  (1) Epoch Times is garbage, you should know better than to consume such contrived nonsense. (2) I did take the time to attempt to find a legitimate source for this, but unfortunately none exists. You need to develop a better personal filter for what you're taking in as fact.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    Are you implying that this court case and FOIA request don't exist? Or that the FBI did not request 66 years to release documents? It's fine if you don't find Epoch Times to be reputable, just curious what alleged facts you are objecting to. Court filings are typically a matter of public record. Seems like you are just rejecting this information wholesale based solely on the source? Is that the optimal personal filter you are advocating?
    - ratg13 4y ago
      As far as I can tell the facts of the matter are that a federal judge with his own agenda attempted to force the FBI to give over all of Seth Rich's personal data and gave them 14 days to comply. The FBI responded that 14 days was an unreasonable amount of time and asked the judge to either specify exactly what it is they want, or give them time to review the data themselves. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23218831/doj-reconsideration-motion.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23218831/doj-reconsid... The alt-right media has twisted what the FBI was saying about the time it takes to review documents and trying to paint their rebuttal as 'they want to hide this forever', which is not the case. .. which is why you won't find this "66 years" thing on any reputable website.
      - kolanos 4y ago
        > As far as I can tell the facts of the matter are that a federal judge with his own agenda attempted to force the FBI to give over all of Seth Rich's personal data and gave them 14 days to comply. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is law. The judge was following the law here. 14 days is what the statute provides. Seems unfair to call this a personal agenda by the judge? > The FBI responded that 14 days was an unreasonable amount of time and asked the judge to either specify exactly what it is they want, or give them time to review the data themselves. 14 days is statutory. The FBI responded with an even less reasonable amount of time (66 years from start to finish). Why is that acceptable but 14 days is not? > The alt-right media has twisted what the FBI was saying about the time it takes to review documents and trying to paint their rebuttal as 'they want to hide this forever', which is not the case. .. which is why you won't find this "66 years" thing on any reputable website. The 66 years is how long it will take the FBI to release 396,000 documents at a rate of 500 a month. The individuals involved in this case will likely be deceased by the time they are done, which might as well be forever. The whole point of FOIA is government transparency. If the public is expected to wait until they are long dead to get access to public records, then that is undermining both the spirit and letter of the law.
q1w2 4y ago
We'll never know for certain. ...but regardless, the leaks were shown to be real documents - not fabrications or alterations.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
If I’m ever murdered, I hope the FBI isn’t forced to hand over the contents of my private laptop to random strangers who file FOIA requests. This whole thing is despicable and you should be ashamed.
- kolanos 4y ago
  It was his DNC laptop and governments have some discretion in FOIA requests.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    The DNC is not a governmental organization. Would you like your business laptop subject to FOIA just because the FBI investigated a crime against you?
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      I would be 100% ok with it. I have never put anything on a business laptop that would be embarrassing. My company might care, but why would I?
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        What if it's your startup? What if the FBI seized a personal laptop of yours? Should that be subject to FOIA requests by anyone who wants it? The Fourth Amendment rights against government seizure of your property should also extend to giving that property to random yahoos who can fill a form out.
    - pksebben 4y ago
      at the risk of tying my horse to the epoch times (which I am not trying to do), I think it should be pointed out that the DNC and RNC being in a separate category of scrutiny from government agencies is utter horseshit. If we lived in a world where a third party had a fighting chance, fine, but these institutions are literally deciding who we get to vote for.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        If you wanna make a "the RNC and DNC are subject to FOIA" rule, fine. This isn't how you accomplish it. It wasn't an investigation of the DNC; it was an investigation of Rich's murder, of which there's zero evidence of DNC involvement. A standard of "if you're the victim of a crime, your personal info is fair game to anyone who wants it" would be a very, very dangerous precedent to set.
- kolanos 4y ago
  What if you were murdered under suspicious circumstances and the powers that be were covering it up? (Not saying that is what is happening here, just a hypothetical.)
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    "We're murderers, but we draw the line at violating the FOIA" seems like an unlikely scenario.
thedorkknight 4y ago
Why on earth is this website asking me who I voted for before letting me read an article? Why does the headline make it sound like the FBI wants the documents sealed for 66 years rather than accurately conveying that they'll be release the documents at 500 pages per month, and that therefore it will mathematically take 66 years? >If Mazzant upholds his order, the FBI wants a lengthy period of time to perform the work—66 years, or 500 pages a month. Oh, it's the Epoch times... I guess that answers both questions
- greyhair 4y ago
  Yup. Exactly.Epoch times. Slightly less reliable than the National Inquirer.
- kolanos 4y ago
  There are FOIA statutes that require federal, state and local governments to release documents and other data in the public interest in a reasonable amount of time. In this case, the statute gives the FBI 14 days. Limiting the release of documents to 500 per month to make the process take 66 years start to finish (IMO) is a violation of this statute. And there are tools the government has to automatically scrub documents of potentially sensitive information and these tools can run at a clip far higher than 500 documents a month. And so far, this district judge appears to agree. If I could find any other publication covering this court case I would have provided the link. Similarly, the FDA has asked a court for 55 years to respond to a FOIA request for COVID vaccine data. Assume you won't object to this source. [0] [0]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants...
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    State and federal governments arguing "it's really hard and expensive so you shouldn't make us do it" is the default response to pretty much any FOIA request. This instance isn't special.
    - 4y ago
greyhair 4y ago
Nice. Epochtimes link. Total rag of a site. And everyone knows it.
ratg13 4y ago
(1) Epoch Times is garbage, you should know better than to consume such contrived nonsense. (2) I did take the time to attempt to find a legitimate source for this, but unfortunately none exists. You need to develop a better personal filter for what you're taking in as fact.
- kolanos 4y ago
  Are you implying that this court case and FOIA request don't exist? Or that the FBI did not request 66 years to release documents? It's fine if you don't find Epoch Times to be reputable, just curious what alleged facts you are objecting to. Court filings are typically a matter of public record. Seems like you are just rejecting this information wholesale based solely on the source? Is that the optimal personal filter you are advocating?
  - ratg13 4y ago
    As far as I can tell the facts of the matter are that a federal judge with his own agenda attempted to force the FBI to give over all of Seth Rich's personal data and gave them 14 days to comply. The FBI responded that 14 days was an unreasonable amount of time and asked the judge to either specify exactly what it is they want, or give them time to review the data themselves. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23218831/doj-reconsideration-motion.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23218831/doj-reconsid... The alt-right media has twisted what the FBI was saying about the time it takes to review documents and trying to paint their rebuttal as 'they want to hide this forever', which is not the case. .. which is why you won't find this "66 years" thing on any reputable website.
    - kolanos 4y ago
      > As far as I can tell the facts of the matter are that a federal judge with his own agenda attempted to force the FBI to give over all of Seth Rich's personal data and gave them 14 days to comply. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is law. The judge was following the law here. 14 days is what the statute provides. Seems unfair to call this a personal agenda by the judge? > The FBI responded that 14 days was an unreasonable amount of time and asked the judge to either specify exactly what it is they want, or give them time to review the data themselves. 14 days is statutory. The FBI responded with an even less reasonable amount of time (66 years from start to finish). Why is that acceptable but 14 days is not? > The alt-right media has twisted what the FBI was saying about the time it takes to review documents and trying to paint their rebuttal as 'they want to hide this forever', which is not the case. .. which is why you won't find this "66 years" thing on any reputable website. The 66 years is how long it will take the FBI to release 396,000 documents at a rate of 500 a month. The individuals involved in this case will likely be deceased by the time they are done, which might as well be forever. The whole point of FOIA is government transparency. If the public is expected to wait until they are long dead to get access to public records, then that is undermining both the spirit and letter of the law.

q1w2 4y ago

We'll never know for certain. ...but regardless, the leaks were shown to be real documents - not fabrications or alterations.