Jump to content


Photo

Trump and Russia


  • Please log in to reply
2676 replies to this topic

#2661 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,016 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:35 PM

Some of these people weren't working for the government, if I've read things correctly. They were working for the DNC and Hillary's campaign. 

 

It's a wide umbrella of protection for those who are defined as government, lawyers and security and others, as long as they don't commit fraud or really go overboard are immune from prosecution. A Special Prosecutor's hiring would include all kinds of immunity for people not officially government.


Kind of like the Dems did when Trump took over?

Circle of life

 

Clarence Thomas shifted into Slick Willie Clinton.



#2662 Deranged Rhino

Deranged Rhino

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,559 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 06:45 PM

WHAT, INDEED?

 

 

 

Salon: What if the DNC Russian “hack” was really a leak after all?

 

 

 

If so it will be ignored, because the “hack” narrative is too convenient and well-established

 

:beer:

 

Of course this board has been well aware of these facts since January. Well, at least those who were willing to listen to reason instead of emotion. 

 

If this story continues to walk down the path of the current direction, I suspect there could be treason trials for some folks who have done their utmost to derail the Trump presidency. There appears to be the makings for charges of conspiracy, fraud, slander at the very least. It's despicable behavior. 

 

One would hope. Of course, that only happens if the veil completely falls. As B said above, the more likely course is for everyone to ignore the evidence. Look at how people on the board responded to it when it was brought up weeks ago.

 

It'll be more of the same. For most people this was never about "Russia", it was always about politics and their team against the "bad guy". 

 

It is August 15th, 2017.

 

Donald Trump has been president for 207 days.

 

There still has been no impeachment.

 

O great conspiracy, where art thou?

 

:beer:

I know this post is in jest, but I'll point out for others in the crowd that the actual conspiracy is what Nanker hinted at above imo. 



#2663 snafu

snafu

    Thriving (sometimes)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:05 PM

If this story continues to walk down the path of the current direction, I suspect there could be treason trials for some folks who have done their utmost to derail the Trump presidency. There appears to be the makings for charges of conspiracy, fraud, slander at the very least. It's despicable behavior.

I said awhile back in this thread that it won't be the "crime" or the coverup that's the issue. It will be what the investigation brings to light.

Edited by snafu, 15 August 2017 - 09:07 PM.


#2664 joesixpack

joesixpack

    Hell Bent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,040 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 06:12 AM

Reprisals are a B word. Can't wait for them. I'd start with Wasserman. Put the squeeze on her and lets open up the inner guts of the Clinton machine.



#2665 LeviF91

LeviF91

    Hopelessly devoted to misery

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,717 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:55 AM

 

 

:beer:

I know this post is in jest, but I'll point out for others in the crowd that the actual conspiracy is what Nanker hinted at above imo. 

 

I was more referring to the inevitable leftist shriek that there is a conspiracy to keep Trump in office despite all of the "evidence" against him.



#2666 26CornerBlitz

26CornerBlitz

    Show me the baby

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,264 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 08:27 PM

 

The VIPs aren't anonymous. They signed their names to their analysis - the Forensicator is a secondary source verifying their work. William Binney, among the other names on that report, are career cyber guys. 

 

I'm interested in your take on this piece: http://nymag.com/sel...incoherent.html

The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.

If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. You could try to go on, but to what end? As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about, or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn’t either. Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can’t, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it’s going to need to be at least comprehensible

 



#2667 Deranged Rhino

Deranged Rhino

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,559 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 08:57 PM

 

I'm interested in your take on this piece: http://nymag.com/sel...incoherent.html

 

It's parroting the Washington Post's attack which is missing the point and talking around the actual facts. I'd be interested to hear some of the computer engineers on this site's thoughts because they have more experience than I do on the technical details.

 

But... (my analysis - which is speculation, though I feel with quite a bit of weight to it... and I'm typing on the run so apologies in advance:)

 

This isn't about connection speeds, it's about download speeds while hacking. Which the VIPs report makes clear and this report (and the WP) completely ignore. It's a linguistic trick designed to confuse the reader. Whether or not the DNC or even FSB have high speed internet is immaterial to the evidence being presented by the VIPs report because, per the DNI itself, the "hackers" made every effort to hide their origin. That means they weren't directly accessing the network, they're masking IPs and doing other various things that prevents them from downloading files at that high of speed, regardless of how fast the DNC or FSB internet speeds are. 

 

The best technical actors in the world would not be able to come close to the speed at which the metadata says the files were copied, regardless of how fast their own internet moves. That's why the VIPs' experience, as counter/cyber officers for NSA/FBI/CIA, is relevant. They know the fastest ways to "hack" because they did or prevented it for decades while in service. The metadata proves, to the VIPs, that it was impossible to have "hacked" that fast into the system. How fast the FSB's/DNC's internet is from point A to point B is irrelevant...

 

... Unless the NSA is going to come out and concede the "hackers" didn't do everything they could to mask their location during the hack. Which, if they did would make it easy for them to present the world with direct, incontrovertible (and easily unclassified/de-classified) evidence. It wouldn't require revealing any sources or methods at all if the hackers just went right through the front door... 

 

So it's double-talk meant to confuse the evidence.

 

The truth is, the speeds that it was downloaded at, per the metadata which again is Open Source (anyone can verify this) prove that the files were copied at a very high speed - far higher than it's possible to have hacked. That proves, with open source evidence anyone can verify (I repeat it because it's important, don't take my word, go look for yourself), the DNC wasn't hacked by Guciffer 2.0 as the DNI claims. That alone is damning because the Guciffer hack is the only actual evidence presented in the report itself - the rest is admittedly speculation on the parts of the authors. 

 

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the FBI still has never examined the DNC servers. The entirety of the physical evidence presented in this DNI was down by CrowdStrike - a third party organization with a dubious record. The VIPs report does a wonderful job summarizing why that's problematic, why the timeline of the "hacks" were important, and it's a big part of the story that makes the rest of their evidence so compelling.

 

This article does nothing to address that key issue either. 

 

/ramble :beer:



#2668 joesixpack

joesixpack

    Hell Bent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,040 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:28 AM

Find anything yet mueller?

#2669 /dev/null

/dev/null

    All Glory to The Hypnotoad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,613 posts

Posted Yesterday, 05:51 AM

Find anything yet mueller?

1pa7w3.jpg



#2670 Deranged Rhino

Deranged Rhino

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,559 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:22 AM

I wonder what the distraction in today's news cycle will be to get us not to pay attention to this story:

 

Assange meets US congressman, vows to prove Russia did not leak him documents

 

http://thehill.com/p...id-not-leak-him



#2671 B-Man

B-Man

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,593 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:26 AM

I wonder what the distraction in today's news cycle will be to get us not to pay attention to this story:

 

Assange meets US congressman, vows to prove Russia did not leak him documents

 

http://thehill.com/p...id-not-leak-him

 

Barcelona ?



#2672 Koko78

Koko78

    Professor Chaos!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,793 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:35 AM

I wonder what the distraction in today's news cycle will be to get us not to pay attention to this story:

 

Assange meets US congressman, vows to prove Russia did not leak him documents

 

http://thehill.com/p...id-not-leak-him

 

 

Barcelona ?

 

Trump had 3 scoops of ice cream last night!



#2673 frostbitmic

frostbitmic

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:18 PM

 

 

Trump had 3 scoops of ice cream last night!

That 2nd and 3rd scoop come out of our pockets buddy.



#2674 joesixpack

joesixpack

    Hell Bent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,040 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:24 PM

That 2nd and 3rd scoop come out of our pockets buddy.

 

Sure it wasn't bought and paid for by the russians?



#2675 frostbitmic

frostbitmic

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 682 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:28 PM

 

Sure it wasn't bought and paid for by the russians?

Nah, they're pissed off they didn't get their properties back so no more Rubles for Ice cream for Trump.



#2676 Koko78

Koko78

    Professor Chaos!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,793 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:04 PM

That 2nd and 3rd scoop come out of our pockets buddy.

 

Impeach his ass now!


 

Sure it wasn't bought and paid for by the russians?

 

More proof of collusion!



#2677 joesixpack

joesixpack

    Hell Bent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,040 posts

Posted Yesterday, 04:14 PM

http://www.foxnews.c...n-4-counts.html

 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's happening! everybody excited?

 

 

:D