The FBI's fractured fairytale

[2aguy]

Trump's cardinal sin was not being prepared to immediately fire and replace absolutely everyone hired or promoted by Obama.

He’s too busy firing the incompetent morons he hired, and complaining about the incompetent morons that he’s not allowed to fire.

thank you for helping the purpose of this conversation with your usual well thought out and impartial input.

Sorry, I should have taken your pro-Trump fanfic more seriously.

you can't see the grays in between black and white. if i don't agree with what our FBI did i'm defending trump.

that's some seriously limited intelligence. to me anyway. you don't think my way so you're the idiot.

The FBI discovered massive fraud and sabotage in a Presidential election. Because of that, measures are being taken to find those that were guilty, and to prevent such fraud and sabotage from happening again. I can see why you’re pissed about it.

No...they didn't. That is a lie. The most likely issue is the Pakistanis stealing state secrets from Hilary through the DNC computers...

 

[TheOldSchool]

He’s too busy firing the incompetent morons he hired, and complaining about the incompetent morons that he’s not allowed to fire.

thank you for helping the purpose of this conversation with your usual well thought out and impartial input.

Sorry, I should have taken your pro-Trump fanfic more seriously.

you can't see the grays in between black and white. if i don't agree with what our FBI did i'm defending trump.

that's some seriously limited intelligence. to me anyway. you don't think my way so you're the idiot.

The FBI discovered massive fraud and sabotage in a Presidential election. Because of that, measures are being taken to find those that were guilty, and to prevent such fraud and sabotage from happening again. I can see why you’re pissed about it.

No...they didn't. That is a lie. The most likely issue is the Pakistanis stealing state secrets from Hilary through the DNC computers...

Yes, they did. You are lying to yourself. Not even Trump or republicans dispute it anymore.

 

[Crepitus]

Look fuckface, Agent Orange just proved his allegiance to Putin at the G7. The bastard is doing all that he can to destroy the western alliance and NATO. And when he and Putin meet, as soon as they are in a private setting, Putin is going to unzip his pants and say "You have been a good boy, Donnie, you can have a turn".

Show us on the doll where Putin touched you to make you flip your vote

i can get amazed at how some people just get instantly hostile.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it IS frustrating that you are going on about this when the Gang of 8 have reviewed the evidence and they have said the FBI did nothing at all unusual or wrong. Their investigation was reasonable and appropriate.
So it can be frustrating when Trumpettes keep trying to cloud the water, poison the soup, with these "concerns" that have already been put to rest.
It really doesn't speak very well of those who are still hanging on to it.

/Thread.

 

[iceberg]

just because you say so, huh.

ok. trump didnt collude.

wow this IS much easier thanks!

There has been NOTHING to indicate that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in any way to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Did they have meetings? Sure, everybody has meetings. But is there evidence that any collusion took place? NOT ONE BIT.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what evidence did the FBI/DOJ have in July 2016 that convinced them they had just cause to spy on the Trump campaign. They are not supposed to decide to spy on any American citizen without verified, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing, they're supposed to have SOMETHING upon which to justify what they did. And right now I don't see a damn thing.

Should the DOJ have hired Mueller as a Special Prosecutor to look into what transpired in the 2016 election with respect to any Russian influence? Yeah sure, I got no problem with that, and many Repubs have supported that action. But that was long AFTER what the FBI did in July 2016 and even before that to the Trump campaign. got a big problem with that, and I do not believe any Repub has said that the so-called "Spygate" operation was reasonable or appropriate.

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

 

[TheOldSchool]

There has been NOTHING to indicate that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in any way to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Did they have meetings? Sure, everybody has meetings. But is there evidence that any collusion took place? NOT ONE BIT.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what evidence did the FBI/DOJ have in July 2016 that convinced them they had just cause to spy on the Trump campaign. They are not supposed to decide to spy on any American citizen without verified, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing, they're supposed to have SOMETHING upon which to justify what they did. And right now I don't see a damn thing.

Should the DOJ have hired Mueller as a Special Prosecutor to look into what transpired in the 2016 election with respect to any Russian influence? Yeah sure, I got no problem with that, and many Repubs have supported that action. But that was long AFTER what the FBI did in July 2016 and even before that to the Trump campaign. got a big problem with that, and I do not believe any Repub has said that the so-called "Spygate" operation was reasonable or appropriate.

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

*sigh*

Okay super sleuth, corroborate that conspiracy with a single link that doesn’t attribute that theory to The Nation and the anonymous analyst they spoke to.

 

[iceberg]

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

*sigh*

Okay super sleuth, corroborate that conspiracy with a single link that doesn’t attribute that theory to The Nation and the anonymous analyst they spoke to.

now suddenly anon sources have no credibility.

not playing this "slam the lnk" game wirh you.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Look fuckface, Agent Orange just proved his allegiance to Putin at the G7. The bastard is doing all that he can to destroy the western alliance and NATO. And when he and Putin meet, as soon as they are in a private setting, Putin is going to unzip his pants and say "You have been a good boy, Donnie, you can have a turn".

Show us on the doll where Putin touched you to make you flip your vote

i can get amazed at how some people just get instantly hostile.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it IS frustrating that you are going on about this when the Gang of 8 have reviewed the evidence and they have said the FBI did nothing at all unusual or wrong. Their investigation was reasonable and appropriate.
So it can be frustrating when Trumpettes keep trying to cloud the water, poison the soup, with these "concerns" that have already been put to rest.
It really doesn't speak very well of those who are still hanging on to it.

. Gang of Eight = Deep State

 

[TheOldSchool]

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

*sigh*

Okay super sleuth, corroborate that conspiracy with a single link that doesn’t attribute that theory to The Nation and the anonymous analyst they spoke to.

now suddenly anon sources have no credibility.

not playing this "slam the lnk" game wirh you.

Couldn’t find another source, huh

 

[westwall]

Show us on the doll where Putin touched you to make you flip your vote

i can get amazed at how some people just get instantly hostile.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it IS frustrating that you are going on about this when the Gang of 8 have reviewed the evidence and they have said the FBI did nothing at all unusual or wrong. Their investigation was reasonable and appropriate.
So it can be frustrating when Trumpettes keep trying to cloud the water, poison the soup, with these "concerns" that have already been put to rest.
It really doesn't speak very well of those who are still hanging on to it.

If you're talking about the Mueller probe into Russian collusion, yes. But as for "spygate", who was it who said that investigation was reasonable and appropriate? I'd like to see the link for that, cuz I'm not seeing anything that indicates that investigation was either reasonable or appropriate. Seriously, the FBI has to have substantial and verified evidence against an American citizen before they initiate the actions they took. So far, I don't see anything that approaches that standard.

Seriously, the pre-Obama FBI has to have substantial and verified evidence against an American citizen before they initiate the actions they took; post Obama, not so much

Pre-Obama, post-Obama, I don't care. The FBI/DOJ has to have verified and sufficient evidence to surveil an American citizen. Period. They did not have that when the decided to surveil the Trump campaign in 2016.

Uh, yeah. Sure. Tell that to those people who were spied on with fabricated excuses. That the fbi KNEW were fabricated...

 

[Care4all]

There has been NOTHING to indicate that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in any way to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Did they have meetings? Sure, everybody has meetings. But is there evidence that any collusion took place? NOT ONE BIT.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what evidence did the FBI/DOJ have in July 2016 that convinced them they had just cause to spy on the Trump campaign. They are not supposed to decide to spy on any American citizen without verified, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing, they're supposed to have SOMETHING upon which to justify what they did. And right now I don't see a damn thing.

Should the DOJ have hired Mueller as a Special Prosecutor to look into what transpired in the 2016 election with respect to any Russian influence? Yeah sure, I got no problem with that, and many Repubs have supported that action. But that was long AFTER what the FBI did in July 2016 and even before that to the Trump campaign. got a big problem with that, and I do not believe any Repub has said that the so-called "Spygate" operation was reasonable or appropriate.

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

that conspiracy theory was disproved.

READ MUCH MORE AT THIS LINK: Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong


The claims have slowly trickled through the media, finding backers at the right -wing site Breitbart in early June. Last week, the left-wing magazine The Nation published a 4,500-word story on the allegations.

A forensic report claiming to show that a Democratic National Committee insider, not Russia, stole files from the DNC is full of holes, say cybersecurity experts. “In short, the theory is flawed,” said FireEye’s John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at FireEye, a firm that provides forensic analysis and other cybersecurity services. “The author of the report didn’t consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims.”

The theory behind the report is that it would have been impossible for information from the DNC to have been hacked due to upload and download speeds.
The claims are based on metadata from the files, which were leaked by their purported hacker, Guccifer 2.0, during the 2016 election season. Metadata is information recorded in a file for archiving purposes and is not displayed when a file is open. It can include the last date a file is modified and note what software and devices were involved in creating the file, among other information. When files are copied to a new device, the metadata can record the time each file finishes being duplicated as the time it was “last modified.”

A blogger named “The Forensicator” analyzed the "last modified" times in one set of documents released by Guccifer 2.0. Based on the size of the documents and the times they were downloaded, Forensicator calculated that a hacker was able to copy the files at a speed of more than 20 megabytes per second. That is faster than consumer internet services in the United States can upload documents.

As a result, Forensicator concluded that the documents could not have been copied over the internet. Instead, someone with physical access to the network must have copied them in person to a USB drive, the blogger concluded.

“This theory assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer,” said Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk.

But, said Barger and other experts, that overlooks the possibility the files were copied multiple times before being released, something that may be more probable than not in a bureaucracy like Russian intelligence.

“A hacker might have downloaded it to one computer, then shared it by USB to an air gapped [off the internet] network for translation, then copied by a different person for analysis, then brought a new USB to an entirely different air gapped computer to determine a strategy all before it was packaged for Guccifer 2.0 to leak,” said Barger.

Every time the files were copied, depending on the method they were transmitted, there would be a new chance for the metadata to be changed. Hultquist said the date that Forensicator believes that the files were downloaded, based on the metadata, is almost definitely not the date the files were removed from the DNC. That date, July 5, 2016, was far later than the April dates when the DNC hackers registered “electionleaks.com” and “DCLeaks.com.” Hulquist noted that the DNC hackers likely had stolen files by the time they began determining their strategy to post them.

The July date is also months after the DNC brought in FireEye competitor CrowdStrike to remove the hackers from their network and well after Crowdstrike first attributed the attack to Russia. With increased scrutiny on the network, it would be a high-risk way to remove files. And if an insider removed files from the DNC on July 5, it could just as likely be a second, unrelated attack to the Russian one.

Even if there were no other scenarios that would create the same metadata, experts note that metadata is among the easiest pieces of forensic evidence to falsify. It would be far more difficult to fabricate other evidence pointing to Russia, including the malware only known to be used by the suspected Russian hackers, and internet and email addresses seen in previous attacks by that group.

Forensicator’s claim that 20 to 25 megabyte per second downloads would be impossible over the internet also raised eyebrows. John Bambenek, threat systems manager at the security firm Fidelis, noted that while home internet, where uploads are much slower than downloads, would not allow that speed, corporate and cloud networks could do so.

 

[Care4all]

There has been NOTHING to indicate that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in any way to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Did they have meetings? Sure, everybody has meetings. But is there evidence that any collusion took place? NOT ONE BIT.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what evidence did the FBI/DOJ have in July 2016 that convinced them they had just cause to spy on the Trump campaign. They are not supposed to decide to spy on any American citizen without verified, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing, they're supposed to have SOMETHING upon which to justify what they did. And right now I don't see a damn thing.

Should the DOJ have hired Mueller as a Special Prosecutor to look into what transpired in the 2016 election with respect to any Russian influence? Yeah sure, I got no problem with that, and many Repubs have supported that action. But that was long AFTER what the FBI did in July 2016 and even before that to the Trump campaign. got a big problem with that, and I do not believe any Repub has said that the so-called "Spygate" operation was reasonable or appropriate.

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

incorrect

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

 

[Care4all]

Nobody is bypassing any methods.

just because you say so, huh.

ok. trump didnt collude.

wow this IS much easier thanks!

There has been NOTHING to indicate that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in any way to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Did they have meetings? Sure, everybody has meetings. But is there evidence that any collusion took place? NOT ONE BIT.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what evidence did the FBI/DOJ have in July 2016 that convinced them they had just cause to spy on the Trump campaign. They are not supposed to decide to spy on any American citizen without verified, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing, they're supposed to have SOMETHING upon which to justify what they did. And right now I don't see a damn thing.

Should the DOJ have hired Mueller as a Special Prosecutor to look into what transpired in the 2016 election with respect to any Russian influence? Yeah sure, I got no problem with that, and many Repubs have supported that action. But that was long AFTER what the FBI did in July 2016 and even before that to the Trump campaign. got a big problem with that, and I do not believe any Repub has said that the so-called "Spygate" operation was reasonable or appropriate.

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

nope!

not true at all!

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

 

[iceberg]

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

incorrect

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

great. i'll drop what i think then and follow your "probably".

how can that ever go wrong?

 

[Care4all]

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

incorrect

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

great. i'll drop what i think then and follow your "probably".

how can that ever go wrong?

How about you, taking a deep breath, and analyze the information.... And use your common sense?

 

[iceberg]

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

incorrect

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

great. i'll drop what i think then and follow your "probably".

how can that ever go wrong?

How about you, taking a deep breath, and analyze the information.... And use your common sense?

how about you stop pretending only YOUR "common sense" is correct?

the arrogance from crap like that is astounding.

 

[gipper]

Look fuckface, Agent Orange just proved his allegiance to Putin at the G7. The bastard is doing all that he can to destroy the western alliance and NATO. And when he and Putin meet, as soon as they are in a private setting, Putin is going to unzip his pants and say "You have been a good boy, Donnie, you can have a turn".

Show us on the doll where Putin touched you to make you flip your vote

i can get amazed at how some people just get instantly hostile.

That is OldCocks way. He is notorious for it.

Actually I am surprised he is still posting...all that hate isn't good for one's health.

 

[gipper]

Look fuckface, Agent Orange just proved his allegiance to Putin at the G7. The bastard is doing all that he can to destroy the western alliance and NATO. And when he and Putin meet, as soon as they are in a private setting, Putin is going to unzip his pants and say "You have been a good boy, Donnie, you can have a turn".

I suggest you take a Midol honey and cut down on the illicit drug use.

I don't think your perscription will help OldCock.

I suspect the only 'cure' is a full lobotomy.

 

[Care4all]

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

incorrect

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

great. i'll drop what i think then and follow your "probably".

how can that ever go wrong?

How about you, taking a deep breath, and analyze the information.... And use your common sense?

how about you stop pretending only YOUR "common sense" is correct?

the arrogance from crap like that is astounding.

ok, fine, I'll spell it out for you....

the initial Briebart article, is meant to deceive you....or deceive those who WANT to be deceived, or are too UNINFORMED and will be deceived.

Your deceiver tech guy said he measured the speeds through the meta data for Guccifer's handling of the stolen emails, on July 5th.

guccifer, was a middle man, NOT the thief, and the emails were stolen from the DNC months before this July 5th transfer of Guccifer's that this phony tech guy allegedly examined.

 

[task0778]

i can get amazed at how some people just get instantly hostile.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it IS frustrating that you are going on about this when the Gang of 8 have reviewed the evidence and they have said the FBI did nothing at all unusual or wrong. Their investigation was reasonable and appropriate.
So it can be frustrating when Trumpettes keep trying to cloud the water, poison the soup, with these "concerns" that have already been put to rest.
It really doesn't speak very well of those who are still hanging on to it.

If you're talking about the Mueller probe into Russian collusion, yes. But as for "spygate", who was it who said that investigation was reasonable and appropriate? I'd like to see the link for that, cuz I'm not seeing anything that indicates that investigation was either reasonable or appropriate. Seriously, the FBI has to have substantial and verified evidence against an American citizen before they initiate the actions they took. So far, I don't see anything that approaches that standard.

Seriously, the pre-Obama FBI has to have substantial and verified evidence against an American citizen before they initiate the actions they took; post Obama, not so much

Pre-Obama, post-Obama, I don't care. The FBI/DOJ has to have verified and sufficient evidence to surveil an American citizen. Period. They did not have that when the decided to surveil the Trump campaign in 2016.

Uh, yeah. Sure. Tell that to those people who were spied on with fabricated excuses. That the fbi KNEW were fabricated...

I meant that the FBI/DOJ did not have verified and sufficient evidence when they surveilled the Trump campaign. I cannot speak to other times when they spied on American citizens. I do not doubt that the FBI/DOJ knew that their evidence was extremely flimsy at best, but did it anyway for political reasons.

 

[iceberg]

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

incorrect

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

great. i'll drop what i think then and follow your "probably".

how can that ever go wrong?

How about you, taking a deep breath, and analyze the information.... And use your common sense?

how about you stop pretending only YOUR "common sense" is correct?

the arrogance from crap like that is astounding.

ok, fine, I'll spell it out for you....

the initial Briebart article, is meant to deceive you....or deceive those who WANT to be deceived, or are too UNINFORMED and will be deceived.

Your deceiver tech guy said he measured the speeds through the meta data for Guccifer's handling of the stolen emails, on July 5th.

guccifer, was a middle man, NOT the thief, and the emails were stolen from the DNC months before this July 5th transfer of Guccifer's that this phony tech guy allegedly examined.

you know - i can agree with you 100% - but from my point of view, you're doing all the things you tell me i'm doing and your sources do all the things you say my "supposed" resources are doing. (don't do brietbart either. making these assumptions on where i get my info doesn't help your credibility in why i should believe you and your sources for no other reason reason that you like 'em)

now what?

assange also said russia was not involved. now he's a liar or working with the russians. both sides of this argument when a counter point is heard, we don't consider that counter point, we look for talking points against it. we no longer look at things as they are but as we need them to be and then twist the info to our direction, or dismiss it as stupid - again for no other reason than our own comforts.

i can grant you the download speeds are certainly not a slam dunk, but if awan left the country and *did* copy them via usb and the dates show that day - then it's enough to look into. yet you dismiss it cause it doesn't demonize trump nor support your viewpoints.

so if you want to talk down to me that's fine. but you got a long ass haul building yourself up before you'll *ever* be in a position to do that.