Quote:

---

New Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files Were Copied Locally - DNC Not "Hacked By Russians"

New meta-analysis has emerged from a document published today by an independent researcher known as The Forensicator, which suggests that files eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona were likely initially downloaded by a person with physical access to a computer possibly connected to the internal DNC network. The individual most likely used a USB drive to copy the information. The groundbreaking new analysis irrevocably destroys the Russian hacking narrative, and calls the actions of Crowdstrike and the DNC into question.

The document supplied to Disobedient Media via Adam Carter was authored by an individual known as The Forensicator. The full document referenced here has been published on their blog. Their analysis indicates the data was almost certainly not accessed initially by a remote hacker, much less one in Russia. If true, this analysis obliterates the Russian hacking narrative completely.

The Forensicator specifically discusses the data that was eventually published by Guccifer 2.0 under the title "NGP-VAN." This should not be confused with the separate publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks. This article focuses solely on evidence stemming from the files published by Guccifer 2.0, which were previously discussed in depth by Adam Carter.

Disobedient Media previously reported that Crowdstrike is the only group that has directly analyzed the DNC servers. Other groups including Threat Connect have used the information provided by Crowdstrike to claim that Russians hacked the DNC. However, their evaluation was based solely on information ultimately provided by Crowdstrike; this places the company in the unique position of being the only direct source of evidence that a hack occurred.

The group’s President Shawn Henry is a retired executive assistant director of the FBI while their co-founder and CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which as we have reported, is linked to George Soros. Carter has stated on his website that “At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation.” Carter’s website was described by Wikileaks as a useful source of primary information specifically regarding Guccifer 2.0.

Carter recently spoke to Disobedient Media, explaining that he had been contacted by The Forensicator, who had published a document which contained a detailed analysis of the data published by Guccifer 2.0 as "NGP-VAN."

The document states that the files that eventually published as "NGP-VAN" by Guccifer 2.0 were first copied to a system located in the Eastern Time Zone, with this conclusion supported by the observation that "the .7z file times, after adjustment to East Coast time fall into the range of the file times in the .rar files." This constitutes the first of a number of points of analysis which suggests that the information eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona was not obtained by a Russian hacker.

Image via The Forensicator

Image via The Forensicator

The Forensicator stated in their analysis that a USB drive was most likely used to boot Linux OS onto a computer that either contained the alleged DNC files or had direct access to them. They also explained to us that in this situation one would simply plug a USB drive with the LinuxOS into a computer and reboot it; after restarting, the computer would boot from the USB drive and load Linux instead of its normal OS. A large amount of data would then be copied to this same USB drive.

In this case, additional files would have been copied en masse, to be "pruned" heavily at a later time when the 7zip archive now known as NGP-VAN was built. The Forensicator wrote that if 1.98 GB of data had been copied at a rate of 22.6 MB/s and time gaps t were noticed at the top level of the NGP-VAN 7zip file were attributed to additional file copying, then approximately 19.3 GB in total would have been copied. In this scenario, the 7zip archive (NGP-VAN) would represent only about 10% of the total amount of data that was collected.

The very small proportion of files eventually selected for use in the creation of the "NGP-VAN" files were later published by the creators of the Guccifer 2.0 persona. This point is especially significant, as it suggests the possibility that up to 90% of the information initially copied was never published.

The use of a USB drive would suggest that the person first accessing the data could not have been a Russian hacker. In this case, the person who copied the files must have physically interacted with a computer that had access to what Guccifer 2.0 called the DNC files. A less likely explanation for this data pattern where large time gaps were observed between top level files and directories in the 7zip file, can be explained by the use of 'think time' to select and copy 1.9 GB of individual files, copied in small batches with think time interspersed. In either scenario, Linux would have been booted from a USB drive, which fundamentally necessitates physical access to a computer with the alleged DNC files.

The Forensicator believed that using the possible 'think-time' explanation to explain the time-gaps was a less likely explanation for the data pattern available, with a large amount of data most likely copied instantaneously, later "pruned" in the production of the Guccifer 2.0's publication of the NGP-VAN files.

Both the most likely explanation and the less likely scenario provided by The Forensicator's analysis virtually exclude the possibility of a Russian or remote hacker gaining external access to the files later published as "NGP-VAN." In both cases, the physical presence of a person accessing a containing DNC information would be required.

Importantly, The Forensicator concluded that the chance that the files had been accessed and downloaded remotely over the internet were too small to give this idea any serious consideration. He explained that the calculated transfer speeds for the initial copy were much faster than can be supported by an internet connection. This is extremely significant and completely discredits allegations of Russian hacking made by both Guccifer 2.0 and Crowdstrike.

This conclusion is further supported by analysis of the overall transfer rate of 23 MB/s. The Forensicator described this as "possible when copying over a LAN, but too fast to support the hypothetical scenario that the alleged DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania)." Guccifer 2.0 had claimed to originate in Romania. So in other words, this rate indicates that the data was downloaded locally, possibly using the local DNC network. The importance of this finding in regards to destroying the Russian hacking narrative cannot be overstated.

If the data is correct, then the files could not have been copied over a remote connection and so therefore cannot have been "hacked by Russia."

The use of a USB drive would also strongly suggest that the person copying the files had physical access to a computer most likely connected to the local DNC network. Indications that the individual used a USB drive to access the information over an internal connection, with time stamps placing the creation of the copies in the East Coast Time Zone, suggest that the individual responsible for initially copying what was eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona under the title "NGP-VAN" was located in the Eastern United States, not Russia.

The implications of The Forensicator's analysis in combination with Adam Carter's work, suggest that at the very least, the Russian hacking narrative is patently false. Adam Carter has a strong grasp on the NGP-VAN files and Guccifer 2.0, with his website on the subject called a "good source" by Wikileaks via twitter. Carter told Disobedient Media that in his opinion the analysis provided by The Forensicator was accurate, but added that if changes are made to the work in future, any new conclusions would require further vetting.

On the heels of recent retractions by legacy media outlets like CNN and The New York Times, this could have serious consequences, if months of investigation into the matter by authorities are proven to have been based on gross misinformation based solely on the false word of Crowdstrike.

Assange recently lamented widespread ignorance about the DNC Leak via Twitter, specifically naming Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the Whitehouse and mainstream media as having “reason” to suppress the truth of the matter. As one of the only individuals who would have been aware of the source of the DNC Leaks, Assange’s statement corroborates a scenario where the DNC and parties described in Adam Carter's work likely to have included Crowdstrike, may have participated in “suppressing knowledge" of the true origins and evidence surrounding the leak of the DNC emails by confusing them with the publication of the Guccifer 2.0 persona.

Despite Guccifer 2.0's conflicting reports of having both been a Russian hacker and having contact with Seth Rich, the work of The Forensicator indicates that neither of these scenarios is likely true.

What is suggested is that the files now known as "NGP-VAN" were copied by someone with access to a system connected to the DNC internal network, and that this action had no bearing on the files submitted to Wikileaks and were most likely unassociated with Seth Rich, and definitively not remotely "hacked" from Russia.

---

Quote:

---

More easily observed lying from Signym. No wonder she's a Trumpian!

---

Quote:

---

You changed the title to add: "Maddow admits to fake news" and yet what you posted doesn't show her admitting to fake news. Where is "Maddow admits to fake news?"

---

Quote:

---

Maddow to news orgs: beware of forged Trump Russia documents!
Rachel Maddow explains how an ostensible top secret NSA document submitted through the show's inbox is likely a fake, and points out the perils of such forgeries to news organizations trying to report out important stories like the Trump Russia story...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

More easily observed lying from Signym. No wonder she's a Trumpian!

---

More easily observed trolling form GSTRING!

Quote:

---

You changed the title to add: "Maddow admits to fake news" and yet what you posted doesn't show her admitting to fake news. Where is "Maddow admits to fake news?"

---

Right on MSNBC, troll.

Quote:

---

Maddow to news orgs: beware of forged Trump Russia documents!
Rachel Maddow explains how an ostensible top secret NSA document submitted through the show's inbox is likely a fake, and points out the perils of such forgeries to news organizations trying to report out important stories like the Trump Russia story...

---

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-to-news-orgs-heads-up-
for-hoaxes-985491523709


But thanks for the bump!

---

Here's the headline when we follow your link SIG. Guess you forgot to mention that huh. Hey, just like Trumps cabinet. I'm not a crook says Trump.

---

"Maddow to news orgs: beware of forged Trump Russia documents!"

Quote:

---

Vice retracts two stories about Trump Disney World robot

Vice’s Motherboard on Wednesday retracted two reports about Walt Disney World’s addition of President Trump to “The Hall of Presidents” exhibit, saying it identified “factual errors” in the stories.

“After a thorough investigation into the sourcing of two stories, ‘Here's the Secret Backstage Trump Drama at Walt Disney World's Hall of Presidents’ and ‘Behind the Scenes of Disney's Donald Trump 'Hall of Presidents' Installation’, and the identification of several factual errors, we have decided to retract both pieces,” the website said in an editorial note.

“We are conducting a full editorial review to pinpoint how this source was vetted, and how these stories were approved and published in violation of our usual editorial workflow. We fell short of our standards, and regret the error.”

ADVERTISEMENT
The second report, published on Monday, quoted a source describing an alleged back and forth between Disney and Trump aides. The source claimed that Disney had been battling with Trump’s team, who insisted on writing the speech for the robot.

Walt Disney World disputed the report, saying it was “inaccurate.”

“As we have stated, President Trump will have a speaking role in the Hall of Presidents like every president since 1993,” vice president of communications Jacquee Wahler told The Hill in an email. “We have been working closely with the White House and the president’s recording session has been scheduled. We have repeatedly stated that the attraction will re-open in late 2017.”

Following the second Vice report, Thomas Smith, the editorial content director for Disney Parks, published a blog post saying Trump’s robot would speak in the exhibit and that Disney had been working with the Trump administration to create the recording.

"Despite some media reports to the contrary, President Trump will have a speaking role in The Hall of Presidents, like every president since 1993,” Smith wrote.

“We have been working closely with the current White House — just as we have with previous administrations — and the president’s recording session has been scheduled. The attraction will re-open in late 2017.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, about Rachel Maddow and fake news ...

After spending an excruciating amount of time on the receipt of a probable forged document she then does on to speculate that "somebody" is deliberately seeding the news feed to entrap unwary news organizations. And so, Maddow has turned fake news into MORE fake news (insinuations).

However, the basis of Maddow's insinuations (That it was a well-connected "somebody" with access to the original document) itself is on shaky grounds. It will take "reading with comprehension" to understand why this is so, and I'm not gong to quote the whole story, so I'll just leave you with the link
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-abo
ut-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

As usual, I expect THUGR to laugh at what he can't comprehend, which is ... just about everything.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

---

Quote:

---

So thanks for confirming that you lied. I see you changed the title again to hide it better - weak as hell.

---

Quote:

---

I saw the show and read Glen Greenwald's article before your lame attempt to discredit Maddow. Did you read the whole article? This part is interesting, don't you think?
"PRIOR TO PUBLICATION of this article, The Intercept sent a series of questions to Maddow about all of this. She said MSNBC did not contact The Intercept prior to broadcasting her report “because we were really only working on the document you published, not in your reporting on it.” ... blah blah blah ...

Regarding our inquiries about the possibility that the metadata may have been changed, Maddow said: “yes, like I said on the air, we did look into the possibility of altering the metadata to change the apparent creation date, and, as I said, it could definitely have been altered.”

...blah blah blah ...

My conclusions were that she presented a fine piece of detective work to ferret out an attempt to punk her program. She never admitted fake news nor stated unequivocally that her conclusion was the only conclusion, just posed the question.

---

Quote:

---

blah ... blah ...blah ... the usual gratuitous insult and trolling ...blah blah blah

---

Quote:

---

...And maybe in consequence Putin took out a hit on Trump’s son, using those emails as a reminder to President Trump that Putin has far worse on Trump Senior. - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, about Rachel Maddow and fake news ...

After spending an excruciating amount of time on the receipt of a probable forged document she then does on to speculate that "somebody" is deliberately seeding the news feed to entrap unwary news organizations. And so, Maddow has turned fake news into MORE fake news (insinuations).

However, the basis of Maddow's insinuations (That it was a well-connected "somebody" with access to the original document) itself is on shaky grounds. It will take "reading with comprehension" to understand why this is so, and I'm not gong to quote the whole story, so I'll just leave you with the link
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-abo
ut-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

---

So thanks for confirming that you lied. I see you changed the title again to hide it better - weak as hell.

I saw the show and read Glen Greenwald's article before your lame attempt to discredit Maddow. Did you read the whole article? This part is interesting, don't you think?

"PRIOR TO PUBLICATION of this article, The Intercept sent a series of questions to Maddow about all of this. She said MSNBC did not contact The Intercept prior to broadcasting her report “because we were really only working on the document you published, not in your reporting on it.”

As for the issues of the timeline, Maddow stressed that “we explicitly *didn’t* say it was sent to us prior to your publication. I said — and we even showed a calendar graphic to illustrate — that it was sent to us *after* you published. No one falsely made it appear that it was sent to us prior to your publication. It came to us afterwards — which is what I said on the air.”

Regarding our inquiries about the possibility that the metadata may have been changed, Maddow said: “yes, like I said on the air, we did look into the possibility of altering the metadata to change the apparent creation date, and, as I said, it could definitely have been altered.”

As for our question that pointed out that the exact same time appears in the metadata on the document sent to her as the one we published, strongly suggesting that whoever sent her the document took it from The Intercept’s site, Maddow said: “We got a document *different* than yours, with no purported connection to yours, except we sussed out that someone appears to have used your doc as a template for ginning up a fake one to sent to us. And yes the timestamp absolutely goes to our whole point — someone used the document sent to you as a template for forging the fake document sent to us.”

One can listen to Maddow’s original report and draw your own conclusions."

My conclusions were that she presented a fine piece of detective work to ferret out an attempt to punk her program. She never admitted fake news nor stated unequivocally that her conclusion was the only conclusion, just posed the question. Stating that along with how a similar scam brought down Dan Rather helped bring it into focus. Sad that we live at a time with an administration so full of liars that it makes so much sense. Kind of like how it makes so much sense that in your zeal and blindness to discredit Maddow you would tell such a childish and obvious lie. But then you're a Trump/Russia social bot, so it just follows.

==============================

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Seriously then.... what are you bitching about?



I've lived most of my adult life without health insurance. Even under Obamacare they won't cover the dental work that will inevitably shorten my life, because it's dental work.

They still won't turn you away from the ER because you can't pay. Whenever something really bad happens they have to take me, and I don't ever plan on paying them back anyhow. They can't take my house which I own free and clear, and they can't take my car. I don't have much more than that and I don't need it.

I'm good. You're good. We're all good.




BTW... I never said I make 5k a year. Only that I spend 5k a year. I haven't made any money since October of 2015.

---

Quote:

---

Gay slur for an insult - go to the head of the zero class again.- G

---

Quote:

---

Only to follow up her usual gratuitous insult and trolling with this statement:

blah ... blah ...blah ... the usual gratuitous insult and trolling ...blah blah blah

The irony. The hypocrite just can't help herself himself.

---

Quote:

---

But then you're a Trump/Russia social bot, so it just follows. - G

---

Quote:

---

Do you know what I think Trump's Big Sin is, as far as "Russia" is concerned? He's not paranoid about them like you are. He doesn't think that they're the most powerful, most cunning, most devious, most aggressive force on the planet. I really think that's what all of this is about: his lack of paranoia. - SIGNY

Wow - finally some clear thinking from SIGNYM. Keep grinding those gears. Yes, he trusts Russia too much because they have had years of breaking bread together (ie., doing deals, trading money). He trusts them so much that he doesn't see it as colluding with a foreign entity, it's just "doing business with friends." Ding. Russians have another description for it, maybe like: "checkmate." - G

---

Quote:

---

Maddow is usually cautious when it comes to reports, plus she's learned from what happened to Rather that I would think that she'd be extra cautious to check and double check her sources.

---

Quote:

---

Right now there's so much bullshit flying about that you need to choose your news carefully. I tend to think, at least for me, that there are certain folks who are not serving the public good with good intentions. Choose wisely, my friends, choose wisely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hey, I "get" that we (still) depend on foreign oil and so certain shipping lanes and canals must not be interdicted to our oil supplies, and that we (still) need our Gulf sheiks to keep supplying oil. And I "get" that we need to destroy every oil-producing state that threatens the petrodollar, because the thing holding up our currency is our military, not our economy. But in the long run, these are dependencies that we need to eliminate, not encourage. So, in the end, what are our interests and who is threatening them?

---

Quote:

---

You clearly meant suggesting I was gay as an insult - so, another lie.

---

Quote:

---

Like when you called second "she." You're like a 10 year old - you just can't help yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Hey, I "get" that we (still) depend on foreign oil and so certain shipping lanes and canals must not be interdicted to our oil supplies, and that we (still) need our Gulf sheiks to keep supplying oil. And I "get" that we need to destroy every oil-producing state that threatens the petrodollar, because the thing holding up our currency is our military, not our economy. But in the long run, these are dependencies that we need to eliminate, not encourage. So, in the end, what are our interests and who is threatening them?- SECOND

What is in our interest? The USA is very close to having all the technologies to eliminate 90 percent of its fossil fuel use: cheap solar, cheap wind power, and cheap battery storage. That kind of infrastructure buildout would be a huge economic stimulus for the USA and create jobs. And it would squeeze the treasuries of the oil-exporting economies Russia and Saudi Arabia.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/07/our-approach-to-climate-change-
isnt-working-lets-try-something-else/

But Trump does not believe it should be done and his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, looks after Exxon-Mobil’s best interests, not ours. And the 184,500 coal mining employees would whine and complain. Therefore what is in our best interest will not be happening so long as Trump is President or the GOP has at least 40 Senators scheming to kill these projects however they can.- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Right now there's so much bullshit flying about that you need to choose your news carefully. I tend to think, at least for me, that there are certain folks who are not serving the public good with good intentions. Choose wisely, my friends, choose wisely.


SGG

---

Perfect SGG. The facts along with honest interpretations of those facts are out there.

Quote:

---

I assumed SECOND was a "she" because of the avatar, ...- SIGNY

You have a male avatar and you are female, so... another lie?- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You clearly meant suggesting I was gay as an insult - so, another lie.

---

Uh huh. Maybe it was, yanno, a trick? To reveal your prejudices to others?

Quote:

---

Like when you called second "she." You're like a 10 year old - you just can't help yourself.

---

I assumed SECOND was a "she" because of the avatar, because SECOND did not reveal anything about his sex, and because I called SECOND "she" and "her" several times in the past and I was never corrected. I recall being called "he" and never correcting the poster. It's not a big deal.

I can't help it if you insist in thinking the worst of me, but honestly, you're really far off the mark.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND, we aren't THAT close to eliminating our dependence on oil. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, and large-scale batteries are still a ways off ... just look at the difficulty that Tesla is having producing enough batteries for its cars. We're putting solar panels on our roof (panels having just broken the energy barrier about five years ago, where they produce over their lifetime more energy than it took to make them) but have declined the off-grid "wall battery" which isn't anywhere near good enough to power a whole house for any length of time.

The batteries crap out after five years or so anyway, and my contacts in the solid waste field are telling me soto voce that they're becoming a solid waste problem. And besides, we run the risk of becoming dependent on Chinese lithium, instead of Saudi oil.

The energy companies are looking into all kinds of energy storage devices, from pumping water uphill to melting salt to spinning up flywheels but storing enough energy to power a suburb overnight, or for a day or two, is still in th distance. (And BTW- electric cars only improve our carbon footprint by 1% or so.) So while all of this is theoretically possible, it's not here YET. At best, it's a supplemental source of power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, there are all kinds of wonderful ideas out there. But progress will be incremental, not found in one technical solution or implemented by one entity. We will not avoid global warming - Since we're already experiencing it, that option is closed. The only issue is: how much? When? And are we preparing for it?

If it's really as critical as all that, SECOND, you might want to rethink the whole concept of carbon sequestration for your ranching operations. I know it's expensive, but how about being part of the solution instead of part of the problem? You could contact the Nature Conservancy, they have had great success in helping ranchers improve their operations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, basically ...

1) "I'd cut off my nose to spite my face.", and ...

2) "I'm as Republican as the next guy because I let them determine my behavior".

SECOND, your GOP neighbor cannot "undue" what you do. If you sequester five tons of carbon dioxide per year, that's five tons of carbon dioxide per year, irrespective of what your neighbor does or doesn't do. In addition, you can gain MONETARY benefits because your ranches can become more productive; perhaps you can even make then available for private-party hunting (fees) or tourism, for example. You really should look into it; there may be more in it for you than you imagine.

I agree that individual action is not a substitute for collective action; "Hitler would not have been stopped by dumpster-diving". OTOH, if you can set a good example, particularly if it makes money for you, you might be able to motivate others to do similarly.

I personally carry on my passion for the environment personally (individual action like recycling); professionally (thru my choice of employment); collectively through interest groups; and politically through advocacy, voting, and direct support of specific politicians. The actions aren't mutually exclusive, you know.

---

Quote:

---

Basically, you have a false behavioral model of me in your mind. I refuse to turn my life upside down to become a better Democrat. I live in Texas, cash natural gas royalty checks, kill animals with guns, and I am the 1%. The GOP should be my party by my nature, but it is not since I deviate by voting only for Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

You, on the other hand, are living the life, approximately, of an environmentally concerned Democrat. Maybe you should become an actual Democrat and I should vote for Trump the Incompetent Loudmouth Liar in 2020? Then the life we live would be more consistent with our votes.- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Now, I don't know WHY you have such an emotional grotch against the GOP - clearly, you're not trying to solve real-world problems (Maybe they're white and you're Hispanic? Maybe you're feeling guilty about unearned privilege? Maybe you're rebelling against family tradition?) but you're substituting useless action instead of engaging in anything meaningful which might cramp your lifestyle.

And clearly, you don't pay the least bit of attention to anyone but yourself. As I've said .... oh, probably an dozen times by now ... I actually AM a registered Democrat, and voted Democrat nearly all of the time, except when I voted Green, or for Trump.

And I DO think that we face real problems, which I'm actually doing something about.

Now, the liberals here might wonder why I, a committed environmentalist, would vote for Trump, and the reason is that the Democratic leadership fully abandoned its principles about 30 years ago, and they deserve to fail.

---

Quote:

---

Hey, Signym, I call bullshit on your explanation of your vote for Trump. You and 1kiki said that Hillary would cause WWIII with Russia. I think your prediction was silly, but at least it was a real explanation for you voting Trump 2016.

But if you think that “Democratic leadership fully abandoned its principles” you are fully nuts. You lost touch with the GOP reality, Signym:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If the MSM had actually gotten to a pale representation of the facts through some internal process, you might have a point. But this "news item", like so many others in CNN, WaPo, and NYT, was an unverified leak from yet another anonymous source, which CNN happily published without (apparently) even the simplest of verifications.

A process, I might add, that you support through your uncritical swill-swallowing, echoing, and your constant attacks on alternate sources and alternate PsOV.

BTW- Sputnik News and InfoWars - both of which you have constantly impugned as "biased" - were the ones who brought this inaccuracy to light. So suck it, you stupid deep-state trolls. CNN just got its ass handed to it; this isn't a "victory" for the MSM no matter how you try to spin it.

As an aside: The "journalism" behind the original story was so gorram shoddy that it probably put CNN at risk of a major libel suit, or worse. This the only time I've even seen such a thorough climb-down by a major "news" organization. Usually, the journalist resigns but the editor just blithely sails on. The subject of the libelous reporting - Scaramucci- can afford to be forgiving; after all, just look at CNN whittling all over itself trying to get out of trouble.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Hey, Signym, I call bullshit on your explanation of your vote for Trump. You and 1kiki said that Hillary would cause WWIII with Russia. I think your prediction was silly, but at least it was a real explanation for you voting Trump 2016.

But if you think that “Democratic leadership fully abandoned its principles” you are fully nuts. You lost touch with the GOP reality, Signym:

---

Hey SECOND, I know all about the GOP, and it's various conflicting wings ... the social conservatives/ religious right; the libertarian/ Tea Party faction; the big money/ globalist wing; the neocon/ Armageddonist group; and the white supremacist flavors.

Trump isn't fully a Republican, because he was willing to speak against the powerful wing of the GOP, which is the neocon/ globalist faction.

But the DEMOCRATS have ALSO fallen in with the globalists/ interventionists/ neocons/ big money group ... show me how they haven't, I'll bet you can't ... and as such did not offer a real choice for the biggest problems that we face.

I could not have stood one more year of "more of the same or worse" under Hillary. She offered increasing wealth inequity, more "free trade" agreements, fewer jobs, stricter copyright/ patent enforcement, more GMOs, higher pharma prices, more illegal aliens, more war ... what was the upside there? Transgender bathrooms?

Yah, I know- doing something about the big problems might cramp your lifestyle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The Democratic party is NOT as bad as the GOP. The different parts of the Democratic party range from good to bad. Republicans range from bad to evil in my opinion.

Since the Constitution unintentionally makes impossible a three or four party system sharing control of the Federal government, your only real choice is D or R when you vote for Congress or President. You can't get to President Jill Stein of the Green Party. The Constitution makes that outlandish. Don't tell that to Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky because they still hope for an alternative and they will talk your ears off explaining that it is possible if only the "people" realize they have the power to change the world. The "people" didn't write the first Constitution that got us into this mess and they won't be writing the next constitution fixing the disastrous flaws, either.

And your predictions (not made today, but made several times in the past) that Hillary would start WWIII are unbelievable.

---

Yes, yes, and very yes.

"The people" will not do anything of much substance - most of them couldn't even be bothered to vote in one of the most important, radical elections of their time. Can't count on the people.

Siggy and Kiggy don't really believe Hillary was going to start WWIII. That's a convenient lie. There might be a slim chance that they believed had she won, Putin would have started WWIII. Otherwise, it's just another weak bogey man to cover their support for Trump.

Siggy believes Trump was the worst choice for the US and the best choice for Russia. That he will do serious damage to the US - payback or something.

Hey! Croiky! That means she got one right!

---

Quote:

---

WSJ Asks "Who Paid For The 'Trump Dossier'?"

It has been 10 days since Democrats received the glorious news that Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley would require Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort to explain their meeting with Russian operators at Trump Tower last year. The left was salivating at the prospect of watching two Trump insiders being grilled about Russian “collusion” under the klieg lights.

Yet Democrats now have meekly and noiselessly retreated, agreeing to let both men speak to the committee in private. Why would they so suddenly be willing to let go of this moment of political opportunity?

Fusion GPS.

---

Quote:

---

The quest to prove collusion is crumbling

While everyone is fixated on President Trump’s unbecoming and inexplicable assault on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the media has been trying to sneak away from the “Russian collusion” story. That’s right. For all the breathless hype, the on-air furrowed brows and the not-so-veiled hopes that this could be Watergate, Jared Kushner’s statement and testimony before Congress have made Democrats and many in the media come to the realization that the collusion they were counting on just isn’t there.

As the date of the Kushner testimony approached, the media thought it was going to advance and refresh the story. But Kushner’s clear, precise and convincing account of what really occurred during the campaign and after the election has left many of President Trump’s loudest enemies trying to quietly back out of the room unnoticed.

Cable news airtime and in-print word count dedicated to the nonexistent collusion story appear to be dwindling. ... it hasn’t taken long for news producers and editors to realize that the story is fading.

At last, the story that never was is not happening.

... Democrats and their allies in the media have exhausted themselves building a scandalous narrative surrounding the Russian lawyer meeting, but according to Kushner, the meeting was so useless that he “actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after [he] had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote ‘Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting.”’ Maybe the collusion didn’t take very long, or maybe he realized what the lawyer had to say was a useless farce and he wanted to get on with his day.

Much to the dismay of Trump’s haters, Kushner’s account of events even further proves just how far the media has stretched the collusion story. When the campaign received an official note of congratulations from Russian President Vladimir Putin the day after the election, Kushner had to send Dimitri Simes of the Center for the National Interest an email asking for the name of the Russian ambassador so that he could reach out and confirm the message’s authenticity.

... Sure, there are others still in the crosshairs of the collusion-hunters, but Kushner has been the biggest target if for no other reason than he is the only one serving in the White House. Paul Manafort is a private citizen, and he departed the campaign before the general election campaign really started. Donald Trump Jr. is implicated only in the one ill-advised and now-shown-to-be-pointless encounter with a few gadflies. The media can knock itself out trying to find some left-behind paperwork or some other scrap to hang onto, but the dead end is in sight.

The quest for collusion is crumbling.

With the Democrats and their allies in the media beginning to walk away from the collusion story, the single biggest thing keeping this story alive is the president’s obsession with it. No doubt the issue will continue to be irresistible to some of Trump’s haters. Some will never believe the truth, no matter what else is revealed. But if Democrats and the president’s worst enemies can begin to silently acknowledge the obvious and move on, perhaps Trump can, too. Maybe now he will see the futility of continuing to whine, tweet, moan and seethe about the whole non-affair. Maybe the president will now see that he should leave Sessions alone so that he can get on with his work. Maybe he will let special counsel Robert S. Mueller III quietly do his job and the whole “Russian collusion” affair won’t even be a footnote in the retelling of the story of the Trump campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

With the Democrats and their allies in the media beginning to walk away from the collusion story, the single biggest thing keeping this story alive is the president’s obsession with it. No doubt the issue will continue to be irresistible to some of Trump’s haters. Some will never believe the truth, no matter what else is revealed. But if Democrats and the president’s worst enemies can begin to silently acknowledge the obvious and move on, perhaps Trump can, too. Maybe now he will see the futility of continuing to whine, tweet, moan and seethe about the whole non-affair. Maybe the president will now see that he should leave Sessions alone so that he can get on with his work. Maybe he will let special counsel Robert S. Mueller III quietly do his job and the whole “Russian collusion” affair won’t even be a footnote in the retelling of the story of the Trump campaign.

---

Quote:

---

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61682&mid=1
035311#1035311 People can be driven to war, it is true. A relentless media campaign can cause the heartland to become so fearful or liberals to become so outraged that they will take to the streets to demand blood. And despite the fact that you ... the supposed intelligent liberal elite... have seen this over and over again, you keep falling for the same bullshit again and again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

That wasn't written by The WaPo. It was written by a big DC lobbyist, Ed Rogers. Rogers will take anyone's money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The sad thing is, the moment the media stops hyping the 'collusion' frenzy, it'll disappear from the collective American mind, and be as if it never existed at all. All that anger and hate will quickly evaporate.

And how can people learn when the past of a mere few weeks ago can be erased so completely?

And, without reference to how this cycle has happened over, and over, and over, and over, people will be driven to the next focus de jour.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

And how can people learn when the past of a mere few weeks ago can be erased so completely?

---

They can't learn, and they won't learn.

This isn't some new phenomenon. Orwell wrote extensively about it in the 40's and 50's and I assume it wasn't exactly a new thing back then either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

If it's printed in the WaPo, the WaPo wrote it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

How does the WaPo write something?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

That wasn't written by The WaPo. It was written by a big DC lobbyist, Ed Rogers. Rogers will take anyone's money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

If it's printed in the WaPo, the WaPo wrote it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

How does the WaPo write something?

---

I don't know. You were the one who said they didn't write something here:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

That wasn't written by The WaPo. It was written by a big DC lobbyist, Ed Rogers. Rogers will take anyone's money.

---

One would assume that if something didn't write it, then the opposite could also be true.

---

You're so clever you've confused yourself.

You said the Wapo wrote it, suggesting a paper - a non-person - could write something, because it's easier for you to think in small boxes I suspect or you just don't give a sh*t. I said, no, a lobbyist - who is motivated by money and strong gop ties - wrote it and supplied links to back that up. And then you shorted out.

==============================

---