Serious question: If this case goes to trial, which is unlikely, will the defendants be allowed to subpoena the DNC server, which to date has not been forensically examined by any government agency?
You can't "subpoena" evidence, you subpoena live witnesses, or people to produce evidence.
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.
> to date has not been forensically examined by any government agency
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.
This case will NEVER go to trail and that's the point of Mueller filing it. He knows he has to get someone for something and indicting 12 Russians for crimes he can't ever prove is a win for his team. What I'd like to see is the proof that these Russians ACTUALLY did the hacking. How do we know that THESE specific individuals committed these crimes? We don't, Mueller won't/can't prove that but that's the point. It's charge anyone for anything at this point.
[+] [-] alacritythief|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aphextron|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbenson|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorbachev|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] md2c|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nunobrito|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] flyingcircus3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creaghpatr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cepth|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] olefoo|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] frockington|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notfromhere|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] g0dg0d|7 years ago|reply