want to give away the tradecraft, because they want to do it again. but they made it clear that they didn t hack, they didn t sort of seize this stuff in some illicit manner. they used legal process in california, but it wasn t as simple as if these guys dumped their bitcoin in a wallet in the united states, which is what we initially thought when we saw that court document. it was more complicated. the fbi followed the bitcoin, because all bitcoin transactions are in a public ledger. they may be anonymous, but you can see the transaction. the fbi followed it around the world through dozens of transactions and they saw it in a particular place and somehow got the private keys, which is the equivalent of the password. they re not saying how they got it. and used those private keys to then seize the funds, the majority of the ransom that was paid. because bitcoin has fallen in price, the value of the bitcoin fell to $2.3 million, but it s the majority. and it s a big message from the gov
dictated a short but accurate response to the new york times article on behalf of his son. sarah sanders said he didn t dictate. the lawyers, when they actually had to write the special counsel said oh yeah, he did dictate. publicly on tv the lawyers were saying the president didn t dictate the statement. privately, in a letter the lawyers admit yeah, he dictated, but it was short and it was accurate. but it turns out that too wasn t the whole truth. yes, the president dictated it. yes, it was short. no, it was not accurate. the statement mentioned adoption, not attempted collusion which the president and his defenders once denied until that story also shifted. last week it became if we did it, so what? which i don t even know if that s a crime, colluding about russians. you start analyzing the crime. the hacking is the crime. the hacking is the crime. that s certainly the original the president didn t hack. of course not. he didn t pay them for hacking. so now soliciti
said oh yeah, he did dictate. publicly on tv the lawyers were saying the president didn t dictate the statement. privately, in a lawyer the lawyers admit yeah, he dick tatd, but it was short and it was accurate. but it turns out that too wasn t the whole truth. yes, the president dictated. it. yes, it was short. no, it was not accurate. the statement mentioned adoption, not attempted collusion which the president and his defenders once denied until that story also shifted. last week it became if we did it, so what? which i don t even know if that s a crime, colluding about russians. you start analyzing the crime. the hacking is the crime. the hacking is the crime. that s certainly the original the president didn t hack. of course not. he didn t pay them for hack. so now soliciting government intelligence from a hostile foreign power to get elected president isn t a crime, which keeping them honest is far from clear, but the whole framing of it as a hypothetical which is r
this. it appears that if you combine the current reporting along with what you re seeing donald trump doing, he s following the advice and example of his lawyer, his tv lawyer rudy giuliani. here s a couple of examples of rudy giuliani saying on tv what donald trump tweeted this morning. i ve been sitting here looking at the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. it s not. collusion is not a crime. i don t even know if that s a crime, colluding about russians. the hacking is the crime. that certainly is the original crime. the president didn t hack. of course not. he didn t pay them. as you know, it led to the meeting with the russians. if you got the hacked information at cnn would you be in jeopardy of going to jail? of course not. danny, as i remind our audience that this man is a former federal prosecutor who just did that act. anyhow, is this an example of donald trump essentially following the very weird republican advice of counsel? i don t kno
a crime, colluding about russians. okay. you start analyzing the crime. the hacking is the crime. the hacking is the crime. yes, that certainly is the original problem. the president didn t hack. of course not. he didn t pay them for hacking. well, in the strictest sense, both president trump and giuliani are correct. there is no statute against collusion. joining me to deconstruct, retired colonel ralph peters. so, colonel, the change from the president, from the months and months just repeating that there was no collusion, to just about any question asked about russia, now saying in addition to that, collusion is not a crime, the fact that giuliani is saying that, as well, does it seem there is a strategy behind that shift? a strategy of desperation, if a strategy at all. collusion outright may not be a crime in and of itself, but anderson, treason is a crime. collaborating and conspireing with a hostile foreign power against the united states is a crime. receiving ma