ObamaGate is getting big

Page 13 of 34 [ 529 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 34 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TW1ZTY
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,115
Location: The US of freakin A <_<

29 Mar 2019, 8:30 pm

Hackerman wrote:

TW1ZTY wrote:

I value the truth that Amuuurica sucks and we got a greedy narcissist for a president with greedy narcissistic followers who love him and a media that lies to us about everything.

I can't wait for this great nation to come crashing down like the Roman Empire. :salut:

Would you rather have a right wing corporatist shill who is funded by Goldman Sachs and Bank of America and who literally admitted she planned to go to war with Iran and kill thousands of innocent people for the lulz?

Nope lulz

But give me one good reason why TW1ZTY should not hate Trump? He's getting us into BS wars too ya know.

Hackerman
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 14 Mar 2019
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: A place of darkness and trickery

29 Mar 2019, 8:41 pm

I'm not defending Trump by any means, but I am saying that Hillary supporters don't have much room to complain. They supported a power-hungry warmongering candidate who would have ushered in a new era of corporate dictatorship, even after they knew about her scandals, and they got butthurt because other people knew about those scandals and didn't vote for her because of that.

_________________
My Website

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Mar 2019, 8:42 pm

Hackerman wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Crimadella wrote:

Gromit wrote:

Crimadella wrote:

Lol. Still not hanging up the collusion conspiracy.

Would you explain what "Russia, if you're listening, ..." followed a few hours later by the GRU's hacking is, if not collusion? And Flynn offered the end of sanctions not long after. Manafort handed polling data to Kilimnik. Those were not public polls. Those were the detailed polls that tell you which voters to target, the sort of information that you only want your allies to have. According to Barr, that is not relevant, because Kilimnik, despite alleged links to Russian intelligence, is not officially employed by the Russian government, and so Mueller's report doesn't deal with it. Would you have allowed Obama to hide behind that sort of technicality? Then there is the Trump Tower meeting. Don Jr was offered campaign help by the Russian government. He says he didn't get it, but he wanted it. He admitted that. When a criminal tries, but fails, that is not exoneration.

All of this is public information. Do you want to dispute any of it? Or explain what makes it something other than collusion?

What is the GRU's. There is a lot of evidence that Russia didn't hack Hillary's emails, it was an internal leak, not a hack. I kinda Trust the 2 year FBI investigation rather than liberals trying to keep the conspiracy going. The thing is, people have been fed this crap for so long they are not going to believe anything but collusion, just as you two will not drop it. Dems are trying to put Muller on trial now, so maybe you conspiracy theorists will get the evidence to see that you are wrong, either way, I still doubt either of you or them will ever admit it, like flatearthers, the conspiracy will never die(they have a lot of supposed evidence also, the flatearthers)

In fact the Mueller report says the Russians had hacked the DNC, and then leaked said emails to Wikileaks. Just because conservative propagandists says something's so doesn't mean it is.

You sound pretty butthurt over the fact that people knew the truth about Hillary Clinton and that caused her to lose the election. Do you value the truth? Apparently not.

"Butthurt"... That's a Raptor word.
You using a new online identity there, bird? :twisted:

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 29 Mar 2019, 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TW1ZTY
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,115
Location: The US of freakin A <_<

29 Mar 2019, 8:43 pm

Hackerman wrote:

And do you think I'm a Hillary supporter? :lol:

I'm the one who hates Republicans AND Democrats. :wink:

Hackerman
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 14 Mar 2019
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: A place of darkness and trickery

29 Mar 2019, 8:49 pm

TW1ZTY wrote:

Hackerman wrote:

And do you think I'm a Hillary supporter? :lol:

I did not get that impression from you, no. I'm just making a general statement. Nothing directed at you.

_________________
My Website

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

30 Mar 2019, 9:28 am

The media's complicity in the biggest corruption scandal in American political history, summarized.

_________________

There Are Four Lights!

TW1ZTY
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Sep 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,115
Location: The US of freakin A <_<

30 Mar 2019, 9:39 am

Fighting corruption with corruption. :roll:

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

30 Mar 2019, 7:57 pm

Darmok wrote:

The media's complicity in the biggest corruption scandal in American political history, summarized.

The investigation started with Papadopolous bragging, and the dossier was originally commissioned by one of Trump's rivals for the Republican nomination.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 Mar 2019, 8:53 pm

Gromit wrote:

Darmok wrote:

The media's complicity in the biggest corruption scandal in American political history, summarized.

The investigation started with Papadopolous bragging, and the dossier was originally commissioned by one of Trump's rivals for the Republican nomination.

That second part is only according to Trump.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

31 Mar 2019, 6:30 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Gromit wrote:

The investigation started with Papadopolous bragging, and the dossier was originally commissioned by one of Trump's rivals for the Republican nomination.

That second part is only according to Trump.

I remember it being one of Trump's talking points that the dossier was paid for by Clinton. That's what he said here:

The New York Times had this to say about the original source of funding:

New York Times wrote:

The story began in September 2015, when a wealthy Republican donor who strongly opposed Mr. Trump put up the money to hire a Washington research firm run by former journalists, Fusion GPS, to compile a dossier about the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses

After Mr. Trump emerged as the presumptive nominee in the spring, the Republican interest in financing the effort ended. But Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton were very interested, and Fusion GPS kept doing the same deep dives, but on behalf of new clients.

In June, the tenor of the effort suddenly changed. The Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee had been hacked, apparently by Russian government agents, and a mysterious figure calling himself “Guccifer 2.0” began to publish the stolen documents online.

Mr. Simpson hired Mr. Steele, a former British intelligence officer with whom he had worked before.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html

My memory was not accurate. A dossier was orignally compiled on behalf of Republicans, but Steele only got involved after Republican involvement had ended. Trump complains mostly about Steele.

Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

31 Mar 2019, 6:54 pm

Article wrote:

RussiaGate: New Evidence Shows DNC Emails Were Leaked, Not ‘Hacked’

As the RussiaGate folly and the Mueller Investigation continue to unravel, so does the claim by US intelligence agencies that Russians somehow “hacked” the email servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the summer of 2016, before giving the email tranche to WikiLeaks. New evidence suggests that DNC emails were actually LEAKED from inside the organization. Moreover, these digital forensic findings have since been validated by two former technical heads of the US National Security Agency (NSA).

Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump. If Mueller gives you his “completed” report anytime soon, it should be graded “incomplete.” Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We stand ready to help.

We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story, we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

There is an overabundance of “assessments” but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of “evidence,” particularly if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions. We know only too well — and did our best to expose — how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

We have scrutinized publicly available physical data — the “trail” that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media — an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.

This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below — as a kind of aide-memoire— a discussion of some of the key factors related to what has become known as “Russia-gate.” And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data associated with WikiLeaks’ publication of the DNC emails.

We do not claim our conclusions are “irrefutable and undeniable,” a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments, however, are based on the scientific method — not “assessments.” We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring that you hear that directly from us.

If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work — or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.

In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “to ensure a full and thorough investigation,” when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again, we are at your disposal.
-----------------------------------------------------

Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?

There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS’ two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.

There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: “We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.” On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement, claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a “hack” of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS reportedin a wrap-up Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence),” forensic examination of the July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish from the DNC, by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.” WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three days before the Democratic convention.

As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S. This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.

Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained — from a data center in New Jersey to a data center in the UK — was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb drive.

The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5, 2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.

There is much more to the article if you care to read...
https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/03/28/ ... ot-hacked/

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

01 Apr 2019, 12:07 am

_________________

There Are Four Lights!

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Apr 2019, 12:45 am

Gromit wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Gromit wrote:

The investigation started with Papadopolous bragging, and the dossier was originally commissioned by one of Trump's rivals for the Republican nomination.

That second part is only according to Trump.

I remember it being one of Trump's talking points that the dossier was paid for by Clinton. That's what he said here:

The New York Times had this to say about the original source of funding:

New York Times wrote:

But does United States intelligence back up any of that?

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Apr 2019, 12:47 am

Crimadella wrote:

Article wrote:

There is much more to the article if you care to read...
https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/03/28/ ... ot-hacked/

So the Mueller report, which Trump now endorses, is inaccurate by saying the Russians did in fact hack the DNC?

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

01 Apr 2019, 12:55 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

But does United States intelligence back up any of that?

Any of what? The content of the dossier? I don't know. The most I read about it was that there was no evidence one way or another for claims in which Steele had low confidence, some evidence, but not conclusive, for the claims in which Steele had greater confidence, and that nothing had been shown to be false. I don't remember the source, and I don't think there was any breakdown into specific claims.

Fusion GPS reported suspicion of money laundering, but I don't know whether that came from Steele. I have seen similar claims since then, so far nothing more than a claim that you see the same pattern of cash payments and shell companies when there is money laundering. One thing that looks rather optimistic and overly trusting now is this:

John Peffer wrote:

The information that could bring down Trump — and that presumably Robert Mueller is trying to obtain — may be somewhere in the Deutsche Bank files.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/donald-trump-russia-money-laundering-mueller-investigation-us-politics-news-91721/ If we can believe Barr, Mueller didn't look into money laundering.

I have no idea what opinion US intelligence might have on Trump's involvement money laundering.

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

01 Apr 2019, 1:40 pm

Yes indeed. It's time, and well past time, to investigate the real criminals.

A new special counsel should be appointed

Now it’s time to investigate the investigators.

It’s become abundantly clear there was a conspiracy waged against a sitting U.S. president now that the Robert Mueller investigation has confirmed the Russia collusion hoax was just that — a hoax — manufactured by a witches’ brew of Democrats including Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Obama deep state officials and a complicit media seeking to derail the Trump administration.

The interference began as an attempt first to “stop Trump” from getting elected, as former FBI agent Peter Strzok said in a text message, since uncovered, to his lover during the 2016 election. When that failed, Trump’s enemies attempted to delegitimize and ultimately remove a duly-elected president....

Attorney General Bill Barr must heed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsay Graham’s call for the appointment of a new special counsel to investigate the investigators and hold bad actors to account. A failure to do so will forever tarnish the integrity of the Department of Justice and jeopardize future U.S. elections.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/31 ... appointed/

_________________

There Are Four Lights!

Page 13 of 34 [ 529 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 34 Next

Jump to:

ObamaGate is getting big Post Reply New Topic

ObamaGate is getting big