REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

In the garden, and RAIN!!!!

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 17:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 625234
PAGE 30 of 231

Friday, March 29, 2019 11:09 PM

BRENDA


You know watching old episodes of the Monkees now is like looking at old photos of the Beatles and being sad that there are only 2 left.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:09 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I love the Beatles. Never really listened to them until their Anthology came out in the mid 90's in several parts and I bought them. I thought it was really cool how that series had several alternate versions of famous songs that were never released before... mine probably being some really strange versions of Strawberry Fields.

Funny you mention them because I just learned yesterday that in the middle of Hey Jude, the same recording that was on the radio and everyone's heard a thousand times by now, Paul screwed up a chord and says "F*$kin' Hell" and it's totally audible. Completely crazy and completely true.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:54 PM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I love the Beatles. Never really listened to them until their Anthology came out in the mid 90's in several parts and I bought them. I thought it was really cool how that series had several alternate versions of famous songs that were never released before... mine probably being some really strange versions of Strawberry Fields.

Funny you mention them because I just learned yesterday that in the middle of Hey Jude, the same recording that was on the radio and everyone's heard a thousand times by now, Paul screwed up a chord and says "F*$kin' Hell" and it's totally audible. Completely crazy and completely true.

Do Right, Be Right. :)



I love the Beatles. Think I have a couple of records of theirs and even have some music on tape.

Hey, even musicians who know the music backwards and forwards make mistakes. Good thing no one caught Paul.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 2:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey Brenda - I see tomorrow will be sunny and the 2 days after that partly cloudy!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 6:23 PM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hey Brenda - I see tomorrow will be sunny and the 2 days after that partly cloudy!



Ah, Spring in BC.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 6:23 PM

BRENDA


I got it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 6:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh HOORAY for you BRENDA!!!!!

I'm so happy for you!!



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 7:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


No kidding!! YAY!!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:06 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


That's awesome, Brenda. :)

Congrats!

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 10:25 PM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh HOORAY for you BRENDA!!!!!

I'm so happy for you!!



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .



Thanks Sig. Now, I can twitch about when I move and how I am going to do it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 10:26 PM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
No kidding!! YAY!!!!



Yup.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 30, 2019 10:27 PM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
That's awesome, Brenda. :)

Congrats!

Do Right, Be Right. :)



Thanks Jack. It's a small one bedroom but there is a balcony and lots of natural light. Tons of storage space.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 2:32 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Rain this evening here but predictions of 19C for next Monday and that is 68F to you all.


Celsius sounds so cold.

Do Right, Be Right. :)


I know. Metric started coming when I was in elementary school. That's middle school to Americans. I have never gotten used to it. I had a hard enough time learning Imperial.

But the warm weather will be nice. Got my laundry done today went out with a winter coat on and when I got back, had to go out again but I was able to put on a sort of Spring jacket. Yay!


I wasn't aware of the history of metric in Canada.

I've said for decades now that the American school system has not only done its people a huge injustice by not teaching metric measurements to them when their kids, but I believe it was intentionally done to keep us from being competitive in the global market. There's really no other explanation for it. We're like the big retard of the world right now.

You get to be our ages and trying to learn metric units of measurement is almost as bad as trying to learn a foreign language. I've learned some minor things here and there when I've needed to, such as millimeter measurements for tools and such, but it's just about damn near impossible to visualize things like kilometers vs miles, and Celsius vs Fahrenheit when you've only known one for your whole life.

There's absolutely no denying that metric is the superior unit of measurement by leaps and bounds. But that didn't stop our teachers from only giving us about a week per year learning metric while focusing the rest of our learning on imperial, while at the same time beating it into our heads that we're superior to everybody else in the world in our social studies classes. It kind of subconsciously gave us the mentality that "so what that the rest of the world uses metric? We're better than everyone else and always will be."

At least, that's my take on it...

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Did they teach you the United States legally adopted the Metric System in 1866? Making it our official measurement system?

NASA lost $134 Million when their Mars Climate Orbiter was destroyed when it confused measuring systems.

Canada caused an Emergency Landing on Flight 174 of the Government owned Airline when it forced use of metric measurements, the jet ran out of fuel in mid-flight, at cruising altitude.

Did you learn how the Fahrenheit scale was created? The Definition of the Celsius scale is easier to understand, with 0 degrees and 100 degrees.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:40 PM

BRENDA


#$%^&^%$%%^$%^%$% using all the hot water again. No consideration for anyone else. They had all day Saturday to wash but noooooooooo.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 3:34 PM

THG


Wonderful post kiki. Let's share it here.
T


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Trump Aided and Abetted Russia’s Attack.


SECOND, been there, debunked that. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61853&p=1 posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack


Written by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation,

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence

HINT HINT!

Quote:

of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

This article is based on an examination of the documents these forensic experts and intelligence analysts have produced, notably the key papers written over the past several weeks, as well as detailed interviews with many of those conducting investigations and now drawing conclusions from them. Before proceeding into this material, several points bear noting.

One, there are many other allegations implicating Russians in the 2016 political process. The work I will now report upon does not purport to prove or disprove any of them. Who delivered documents to WikiLeaks? Who was responsible for the “phishing” operation penetrating John Podesta’s e-mail in March 2016? We do not know the answers to such questions. It is entirely possible, indeed, that the answers we deserve and must demand could turn out to be multiple: One thing happened in one case, another thing in another. The new work done on the mid-June and July 5 events bears upon all else in only one respect. We are now on notice: Given that we now stand face to face with very considerable cases of duplicity, it is imperative that all official accounts of these many events be subject to rigorously skeptical questioning. Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases.

Two, houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the “hack theory,” as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so. Neither is there anything far-fetched in a reversal of the truth of this magnitude.

American history is replete with similar cases. The Spanish sank the Maine in Havana harbor in February 1898. Iran’s Mossadegh was a Communist. Guatemala’s Árbenz represented a Communist threat to the United States. Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh was a Soviet puppet. The Sandinistas were Communists. The truth of the Maine, a war and a revolution in between, took a century to find the light of day, whereupon the official story disintegrated. We can do better now. It is an odd sensation to live through one of these episodes, especially one as big as Russiagate. But its place atop a long line of precedents can no longer be disputed.

Three, regardless of what one may think about the investigations and conclusions I will now outline—and, as noted, these investigations continue—there is a bottom line attaching to them. We can even call it a red line.

Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one.

It requires no elaboration to apply the above point to the corporate media, which have been flaccidly satisfied with official explanations of the DNC matter from the start.

Qualified experts working independently of one another began to examine the DNC case immediately after the July 2016 events. Prominent among these is a group comprising former intelligence officers, almost all of whom previously occupied senior positions. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), founded in 2003, now has 30 members, including a few associates with backgrounds in national-security fields other than intelligence. The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. Most of these men have decades of experience in matters concerning Russian intelligence and the related technologies. This article reflects numerous interviews with all of them conducted in person, via Skype, or by telephone.

The customary VIPS format is an open letter, typically addressed to the president. The group has written three such letters on the DNC incident, all of which were first published by Robert Parry at www.consortiumnews.com. Here is the latest, dated July 24; it blueprints the forensic work this article explores in detail. They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation. In a letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left office, the group explained that the NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks,” the letter said. “If NSA cannot produce such evidence—and quickly—this would probably mean it does not have any.”

The day after Parry published this letter, Obama gave his last press conference as president, at which he delivered one of the great gems among the official statements on the DNC e-mail question. “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking,” the legacy-minded Obama said, “were not conclusive.” There is little to suggest the VIPS letter prompted this remark, but it is typical of the linguistic tap-dancing many officials connected to the case have indulged so as to avoid putting their names on the hack theory and all that derives from it.

Until recently there was a serious hindrance to the VIPS’s work, and I have just suggested it. The group lacked access to positive data. It had no lump of cyber-material to place on its lab table and analyze, because no official agency had provided any.

Donald Rumsfeld famously argued with regard to the WMD question in Iraq, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In essence, Binney and others at VIPS say this logic turns upside down in the DNC case: Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group knew that (1) if there was a hack and (2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs. “Everything that they say must remain classified is already well-known,” Binney said in an interview. “They’re playing the Wizard of Oz game.”

New findings indicate this is perfectly true, but until recently the VIPS experts could produce only “negative evidence,” as they put it: The absence of evidence supporting the hack theory demonstrates that it cannot be so. That is all VIPS had. They could allege and assert, but they could not conclude: They were stuck demanding evidence they did not have—if only to prove there was none.

Research into the DNC case took a fateful turn in early July, when forensic investigators who had been working independently began to share findings and form loose collaborations wherein each could build on the work of others. In this a small, new website called www.disobedientmedia.com proved an important catalyst. Two independent researchers selected it, Snowden-like, as the medium through which to disclose their findings. One of these is known as Forensicator and the other as Adam Carter. On July 9, Adam Carter sent Elizabeth Vos, a co-founder of Disobedient Media, a paper by the Forensicator that split the DNC case open like a coconut.

By this time Binney and the other technical-side people at VIPS had begun working with a man named Skip Folden. Folden was an IT executive at IBM for 33 years, serving 25 years as the IT program manager in the United States. He has also consulted for Pentagon officials, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Folden is effectively the VIPS group’s liaison to Forensicator, Adam Carter, and other investigators, but neither Folden nor anyone else knows the identity of either Forensicator or Adam Carter. This bears brief explanation.

The Forensicator’s July 9 document indicates he lives in the Pacific Time Zone, which puts him on the West Coast. His notes describing his investigative procedures support this. But little else is known of him. Adam Carter, in turn, is located in England, but the name is a coy pseudonym: It derives from a character in a BBC espionage series called Spooks. It is protocol in this community, Elizabeth Vos told me in a telephone conversation this week, to respect this degree of anonymity. Kirk Wiebe, the former SIGINT analyst at the NSA, thinks Forensicator could be “someone very good with the FBI,” but there is no certainty. Unanimously, however, all the analysts and forensics investigators interviewed for this column say Forensicator’s advanced expertise, evident in the work he has done, is unassailable. They hold a similarly high opinion of Adam Carter’s work.

Forensicator is working with the documents published by Guccifer 2.0, focusing for now on the July 5 intrusion into the DNC server. The contents of Guccifer’s files are known—they were published last September—and are not Forensicator’s concern. His work is with the metadata on those files. These data did not come to him via any clandestine means. Forensicator simply has access to them that others did not have. It is this access that prompts Kirk Wiebe and others to suggest that Forensicator may be someone with exceptional talent and training inside an agency such as the FBI.

“Forensicator unlocked and then analyzed what had been the locked files Guccifer supposedly took from the DNC server,” Skip Folden explained in an interview. “To do this he would have to have ‘access privilege,’ meaning a key.”


What has Forensicator proven since he turned his key? How? What has work done atop Forensicator’s findings proven? How?

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.


Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index.

We use speedtest.net to check our xfer rates from home. Just go to that website, it's very useful.

Quote:

It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”

Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. In theory the operation could have been conducted from Bangor or Miami or anywhere in between—but not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone. Combined with Forensicator’s findings on the transfer rate, the time stamps constitute more evidence that the download was conducted locally, since delivery overheads—conversion of data into packets, addressing, sequencing times, error checks, and the like—degrade all data transfers conducted via the Internet, more or less according to the distance involved.

In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

To be noted in this connection: The list of the CIA’s cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called Marble that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to. (The tool can also “de-obfuscate” what it has obfuscated.) It is not known whether this tool was deployed in the Guccifer case, but it is there for such a use.

It is not yet clear whether documents now shown to have been leaked locally on July 5 were tainted to suggest Russian hacking in the same way the June 15 Guccifer release was. This is among several outstanding questions awaiting answers, and the forensic scientists active on the DNC case are now investigating it. In a note Adam Carter sent to Folden and McGovern last week and copied to me, he reconfirmed the corruption of the June 15 documents, while indicating that his initial work on the July 5 documents—of which much more is to be done—had not yet turned up evidence of doctoring.

In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.

On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source.It then posted the adulterated documents just described.

On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.



It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents. Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology. WikiLeaks began publishing on July 22. By that time, the case alleging Russian interference in the 2016 elections process was taking firm root. In short order Assange would be written down as a “Russian agent.”

I will note AGAIN that Julian Assange unequivocally states that the files did not come from a "Russia"; Craig Murray - a close associate of Julian Assange - says that he received the information personally in package form. I have been repeating this over and over, but the usual unwitting deep state trolls here refuse to even remember it.

Quote:

By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back. The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence
... and a known liar, who once said that “No, sir" and "not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans, only to be revealed as a vigorous bulk collector of domestic call records and internet data three months later by Ed Snowden

Quote:

admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the 17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand “hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way these people have spoken to us for the past year.

Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities. The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.

“We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.

In effect, the new forensic evidence considered here lands in a vacuum. We now enter a period when an official reply should be forthcoming. What the forensic people are now producing constitutes evidence, however one may view it, and it is the first scientifically derived evidence we have into any of the events in which Russia has been implicated. The investigators deserve a response, the betrayed professionals who formed VIPS as the WMD scandal unfolded in 2003 deserve it, and so do the rest of us. The cost of duplicity has rarely been so high.

I concluded each of the interviews conducted for this column by asking for a degree of confidence in the new findings. These are careful, exacting people as a matter of professional training and standards, and I got careful, exacting replies.

All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”










NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 3:41 PM

THG


Quote:

Originally posted by THG:
Wonderful post kiki. Let's share it here.
T


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Trump Aided and Abetted Russia’s Attack.


SECOND, been there, debunked that. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61853&p=1 posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack


Written by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation,

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence

HINT HINT!

Quote:

of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

This article is based on an examination of the documents these forensic experts and intelligence analysts have produced, notably the key papers written over the past several weeks, as well as detailed interviews with many of those conducting investigations and now drawing conclusions from them. Before proceeding into this material, several points bear noting.

One, there are many other allegations implicating Russians in the 2016 political process. The work I will now report upon does not purport to prove or disprove any of them. Who delivered documents to WikiLeaks? Who was responsible for the “phishing” operation penetrating John Podesta’s e-mail in March 2016? We do not know the answers to such questions. It is entirely possible, indeed, that the answers we deserve and must demand could turn out to be multiple: One thing happened in one case, another thing in another. The new work done on the mid-June and July 5 events bears upon all else in only one respect. We are now on notice: Given that we now stand face to face with very considerable cases of duplicity, it is imperative that all official accounts of these many events be subject to rigorously skeptical questioning. Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases.

Two, houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the “hack theory,” as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so. Neither is there anything far-fetched in a reversal of the truth of this magnitude.

American history is replete with similar cases. The Spanish sank the Maine in Havana harbor in February 1898. Iran’s Mossadegh was a Communist. Guatemala’s Árbenz represented a Communist threat to the United States. Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh was a Soviet puppet. The Sandinistas were Communists. The truth of the Maine, a war and a revolution in between, took a century to find the light of day, whereupon the official story disintegrated. We can do better now. It is an odd sensation to live through one of these episodes, especially one as big as Russiagate. But its place atop a long line of precedents can no longer be disputed.

Three, regardless of what one may think about the investigations and conclusions I will now outline—and, as noted, these investigations continue—there is a bottom line attaching to them. We can even call it a red line.

Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one.

It requires no elaboration to apply the above point to the corporate media, which have been flaccidly satisfied with official explanations of the DNC matter from the start.

Qualified experts working independently of one another began to examine the DNC case immediately after the July 2016 events. Prominent among these is a group comprising former intelligence officers, almost all of whom previously occupied senior positions. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), founded in 2003, now has 30 members, including a few associates with backgrounds in national-security fields other than intelligence. The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. Most of these men have decades of experience in matters concerning Russian intelligence and the related technologies. This article reflects numerous interviews with all of them conducted in person, via Skype, or by telephone.

The customary VIPS format is an open letter, typically addressed to the president. The group has written three such letters on the DNC incident, all of which were first published by Robert Parry at www.consortiumnews.com. Here is the latest, dated July 24; it blueprints the forensic work this article explores in detail. They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation. In a letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left office, the group explained that the NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks,” the letter said. “If NSA cannot produce such evidence—and quickly—this would probably mean it does not have any.”

The day after Parry published this letter, Obama gave his last press conference as president, at which he delivered one of the great gems among the official statements on the DNC e-mail question. “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking,” the legacy-minded Obama said, “were not conclusive.” There is little to suggest the VIPS letter prompted this remark, but it is typical of the linguistic tap-dancing many officials connected to the case have indulged so as to avoid putting their names on the hack theory and all that derives from it.

Until recently there was a serious hindrance to the VIPS’s work, and I have just suggested it. The group lacked access to positive data. It had no lump of cyber-material to place on its lab table and analyze, because no official agency had provided any.

Donald Rumsfeld famously argued with regard to the WMD question in Iraq, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In essence, Binney and others at VIPS say this logic turns upside down in the DNC case: Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group knew that (1) if there was a hack and (2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs. “Everything that they say must remain classified is already well-known,” Binney said in an interview. “They’re playing the Wizard of Oz game.”

New findings indicate this is perfectly true, but until recently the VIPS experts could produce only “negative evidence,” as they put it: The absence of evidence supporting the hack theory demonstrates that it cannot be so. That is all VIPS had. They could allege and assert, but they could not conclude: They were stuck demanding evidence they did not have—if only to prove there was none.

Research into the DNC case took a fateful turn in early July, when forensic investigators who had been working independently began to share findings and form loose collaborations wherein each could build on the work of others. In this a small, new website called www.disobedientmedia.com proved an important catalyst. Two independent researchers selected it, Snowden-like, as the medium through which to disclose their findings. One of these is known as Forensicator and the other as Adam Carter. On July 9, Adam Carter sent Elizabeth Vos, a co-founder of Disobedient Media, a paper by the Forensicator that split the DNC case open like a coconut.

By this time Binney and the other technical-side people at VIPS had begun working with a man named Skip Folden. Folden was an IT executive at IBM for 33 years, serving 25 years as the IT program manager in the United States. He has also consulted for Pentagon officials, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Folden is effectively the VIPS group’s liaison to Forensicator, Adam Carter, and other investigators, but neither Folden nor anyone else knows the identity of either Forensicator or Adam Carter. This bears brief explanation.

The Forensicator’s July 9 document indicates he lives in the Pacific Time Zone, which puts him on the West Coast. His notes describing his investigative procedures support this. But little else is known of him. Adam Carter, in turn, is located in England, but the name is a coy pseudonym: It derives from a character in a BBC espionage series called Spooks. It is protocol in this community, Elizabeth Vos told me in a telephone conversation this week, to respect this degree of anonymity. Kirk Wiebe, the former SIGINT analyst at the NSA, thinks Forensicator could be “someone very good with the FBI,” but there is no certainty. Unanimously, however, all the analysts and forensics investigators interviewed for this column say Forensicator’s advanced expertise, evident in the work he has done, is unassailable. They hold a similarly high opinion of Adam Carter’s work.

Forensicator is working with the documents published by Guccifer 2.0, focusing for now on the July 5 intrusion into the DNC server. The contents of Guccifer’s files are known—they were published last September—and are not Forensicator’s concern. His work is with the metadata on those files. These data did not come to him via any clandestine means. Forensicator simply has access to them that others did not have. It is this access that prompts Kirk Wiebe and others to suggest that Forensicator may be someone with exceptional talent and training inside an agency such as the FBI.

“Forensicator unlocked and then analyzed what had been the locked files Guccifer supposedly took from the DNC server,” Skip Folden explained in an interview. “To do this he would have to have ‘access privilege,’ meaning a key.”


What has Forensicator proven since he turned his key? How? What has work done atop Forensicator’s findings proven? How?

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.


Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index.

We use speedtest.net to check our xfer rates from home. Just go to that website, it's very useful.

Quote:

It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”

Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. In theory the operation could have been conducted from Bangor or Miami or anywhere in between—but not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone. Combined with Forensicator’s findings on the transfer rate, the time stamps constitute more evidence that the download was conducted locally, since delivery overheads—conversion of data into packets, addressing, sequencing times, error checks, and the like—degrade all data transfers conducted via the Internet, more or less according to the distance involved.

In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

To be noted in this connection: The list of the CIA’s cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called Marble that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to. (The tool can also “de-obfuscate” what it has obfuscated.) It is not known whether this tool was deployed in the Guccifer case, but it is there for such a use.

It is not yet clear whether documents now shown to have been leaked locally on July 5 were tainted to suggest Russian hacking in the same way the June 15 Guccifer release was. This is among several outstanding questions awaiting answers, and the forensic scientists active on the DNC case are now investigating it. In a note Adam Carter sent to Folden and McGovern last week and copied to me, he reconfirmed the corruption of the June 15 documents, while indicating that his initial work on the July 5 documents—of which much more is to be done—had not yet turned up evidence of doctoring.

In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.

On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source.It then posted the adulterated documents just described.

On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.



It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents. Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology. WikiLeaks began publishing on July 22. By that time, the case alleging Russian interference in the 2016 elections process was taking firm root. In short order Assange would be written down as a “Russian agent.”

I will note AGAIN that Julian Assange unequivocally states that the files did not come from a "Russia"; Craig Murray - a close associate of Julian Assange - says that he received the information personally in package form. I have been repeating this over and over, but the usual unwitting deep state trolls here refuse to even remember it.

Quote:

By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back. The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence
... and a known liar, who once said that “No, sir" and "not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans, only to be revealed as a vigorous bulk collector of domestic call records and internet data three months later by Ed Snowden

Quote:

admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the 17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand “hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way these people have spoken to us for the past year.

Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities. The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.

“We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.

In effect, the new forensic evidence considered here lands in a vacuum. We now enter a period when an official reply should be forthcoming. What the forensic people are now producing constitutes evidence, however one may view it, and it is the first scientifically derived evidence we have into any of the events in which Russia has been implicated. The investigators deserve a response, the betrayed professionals who formed VIPS as the WMD scandal unfolded in 2003 deserve it, and so do the rest of us. The cost of duplicity has rarely been so high.

I concluded each of the interviews conducted for this column by asking for a degree of confidence in the new findings. These are careful, exacting people as a matter of professional training and standards, and I got careful, exacting replies.

All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”












T


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 4:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Oh HOORAY for you BRENDA!!!!!
I'm so happy for you!!


Thanks Sig. Now, I can twitch about when I move and how I am going to do it. - BRENDA


How many people do you know who like beer? A case of beer and a U-Haul can get a lot of things done! (But not for the driver!)

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 5:05 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


What thread did rue post that stuff?

I don't see any pertinent thread with activity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 5:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What thread did rue post that stuff?

I don't see any pertinent thread with activity.

A completely different thread. If I ever needed evidence that THUGGER is nothing but a troll, his extended off topic posts here are proof positive.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 5:25 PM

THG


No, kiki and sigs extended posts I post here. Let's face it. All their posts are trolling but some are to excessive or gross to let go. They've both been warned if they troll any of my threads I'll post those posts here. Thank Jack, his Russia Russia Russia post gave me the idea when he dumped that shit into my and anothers thread.

Enjoy...

T



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:04 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So, now that I'm retired, after clearing up some left-over things, my plans for the lowest section of the yard (that I call the lower 40) are:

On the downhill side the low section has an interior dogeared fence, an exterior downhill retaining wall and an alley. On the opposite uphill side is a retaining wall and ramp. On one adjoining side is the garage, and on the other is a small uphill retaining wall. (The lot slopes in 2 directions, significantly front to back but a bit side to side.)

I'm going to
level the section, and install a dry well in the middle (I've read that dry wells need to be 10' from any foundations, driveways etc)
rebuild the small retaining wall opposite the garage, and replace its seriously deteriorated chain link fence, keeping a 9' wide section of dirt at the base of the wall for a garden
replace the fence by the alley and also keep a 9' wide section of dirt at the base of the fence for a garden
pave the area with decomposed granite as a paver base
pave with large, heavy duty (3' x 3' x 6") concrete pavers

Since over all I have a LOT of dirt- and material-moving work to do, I'm considering just buying a small for-home tractor with a blade attachment.

Now for the fun part!
In the two garden areas I'm going to plant mostly California native drought-tolerant shrubs and small trees, a Texas native drought-tolerant tree, and a drought tolerant S American native shrub.

These are all edible fruit bearing!

The Texas native is a small-leaved delicate looking evergreen mulberry tree/ shrub. (Mulberry is my favorite fruit and extremely hard to find!) Here's a picture of one growing in the desert:


The S Am native is an evergreen silver-leafed monster shrub that grows 12-15' tall and almost as wide, that has plum-sized fruit that tastes like guava. It also has edible pepper-sweet flower petals.



One of the CA natives I'm going to plant is an evergreen cherry shrub/ tree with sweet-smelling clusters of white flowers and beautiful crinkled green leaves that sparkle in the sun.



More plants later!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:19 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by THG:
No, kiki and sigs extended posts I post here.

Because they're about at-home stuff?
Quote:

Let's face it.
That you're a troll? Already got that.
Quote:

All their posts are trolling but some are to excessive or gross to let go.
Are they ON TOPIC? Then they're not trolling, they're discussion. Or don't you know what a discussion is?
Quote:

They've both been warned if they troll any of my threads I'll post those posts here.
Because you get to make the rules that make this place a reasonable place to come? What are you - an authoritarian Nazi? Or an authoritarian Commie?
Quote:

Thank Jack, his Russia Russia Russia post gave me the idea when he dumped that shit into my and anothers thread.
And yet, it's YOUR idea - is it not? You just said so yourself! I think YOU deserve all the credit!


BTW, there are 5 spelling/ grammatical errors in your post. One shows up in spell check, with the others you just picked the wrong word, and you missed a comma.

You need to learn English, or go back where you came from.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:15 PM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Oh HOORAY for you BRENDA!!!!!
I'm so happy for you!!


Thanks Sig. Now, I can twitch about when I move and how I am going to do it. - BRENDA


How many people do you know who like beer? A case of beer and a U-Haul can get a lot of things done! (But not for the driver!)

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .



I've got some people that I can talk to but with these people it won't involve beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So, another one of the shrubs I want to plant is called California coffeeberry - a large evergreen sturdy-looking bush. Here's one growing out in the hills:


Here's one called sugarbush, with beautiful flowers:



And the final one is lemonade berry;



Except for the Texas mulberry, I've seen them all growing in real life, and the photos don't do them justice.

Basically I'll have a very large patio with large hedges growing on two adjacent sides, a garage one one side,and an upslope retaining wall on the other. And closer to the retaining wall are two existing lovely scrub oak trees that planted themselves many years ago.

Add large potted plants for the garage wall, an iron fire pit, a table with umbrella shade and a hammock, and that's my slice of heaven ... as low key as it sounds.



At least - that's the long-term landscape plan!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So hey Brenda - it sounds like you have a moving-plan!

Please let us know how things are going.

btw, I wonder how relieved you're going to feel every day when you wake up in the new place and realize, again, that you're not dealing with cold, damp, lack of water, and a witch of a landlady. I know I felt that way for 5 years after I finally got rid of an older beater car that would often quit in the middle of freeway traffic, and got a new one! Sometimes the things that aren't there give the most relief.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:51 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did they teach you the United States legally adopted the Metric System in 1866? Making it our official measurement system?



Honestly, no. That's something I never picked up on my own in real life before either. If it's our official measurement system for the better part of 150 years now, why are we still not teaching it to our kids or using it in almost anything we do?

Quote:

NASA lost $134 Million when their Mars Climate Orbiter was destroyed when it confused measuring systems.


lol. Yeah. I heard about that one.

Quote:

Canada caused an Emergency Landing on Flight 174 of the Government owned Airline when it forced use of metric measurements, the jet ran out of fuel in mid-flight, at cruising altitude.


Oops!

Quote:

Did you learn how the Fahrenheit scale was created?


I may have. If I did, that info is lost in the ether...

Quote:

The Definition of the Celsius scale is easier to understand, with 0 degrees and 100 degrees.


I'm sure it is, just like any base-10 unit of measurement in the metric system is.

The only problem is that I didn't grow up learning any of them. Instinctively, I know what a mile is in my head. I know what a yard is. I can visualize a gallon of milk. I know what 60 degrees F feels like.

If I'm trying to do anything with metric, I have to think about those conversions. They do not come naturally, since our purposefully ass-backwards public education system intentionally teaches us the inferior system to this day, during our formative years.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 9:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by RUE:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What thread did rue post that stuff?

I don't see any pertinent thread with activity.

A completely different thread. If I ever needed evidence that THUGGER is nothing but a troll, his extended off topic posts here are proof positive.

Which thread?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 9:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by RUE:
Quote:

Originally posted by THG:
No, kiki and sigs extended posts I post here.

Because they're about at-home stuff?
Quote:

Let's face it.
That you're a troll? Already got that.
Quote:

All their posts are trolling but some are to excessive or gross to let go.
Are they ON TOPIC? Then they're not trolling, they're discussion. Or don't you know what a discussion is?
Quote:

They've both been warned if they troll any of my threads I'll post those posts here.
Because you get to make the rules that make this place a reasonable place to come? What are you - an authoritarian Nazi? Or an authoritarian Commie?
Quote:

Thank Jack, his Russia Russia Russia post gave me the idea when he dumped that shit into my and anothers thread.
And yet, it's YOUR idea - is it not? You just said so yourself! I think YOU deserve all the credit!


BTW, there are 5 spelling/ grammatical errors in your post. One shows up in spell check, with the others you just picked the wrong word, and you missed a comma.

You need to learn English, or go back where you came from.

Apostrophe in another's - possessive?
I'm missing the spell-check one.


The rummer has a laps in his taters.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 9:36 PM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So hey Brenda - it sounds like you have a moving-plan!

Please let us know how things are going.

btw, I wonder how relieved you're going to feel every day when you wake up in the new place and realize, again, that you're not dealing with cold, damp, lack of water, and a witch of a landlady. I know I felt that way for 5 years after I finally got rid of an older beater car that would often quit in the middle of freeway traffic, and got a new one! Sometimes the things that aren't there give the most relief.



I do.

I will.

I will be relieved. It's going to take some adjustment I know but that will be good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 9:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 10:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What thread did rue post that stuff?

I don't see any pertinent thread with activity.

Quote:

Originally posted by RUE:
A completely different thread. If I ever needed evidence that THUGGER is nothing but a troll, his extended off topic posts here are proof positive.

Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Which thread?

Here's the link from the top of my post. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61853&p=1 I reposted something Signy had posted early in that thread, that dealt with all the technical data about DNC hack v download. Basically, the timestamps embedded in the data couldn't have happened over an internet hack because inet xfer rates are too slow. But it could have happened locally during copying to a portable drive which is much faster. In addition, non-technically, both the 'courier' and Assange state that they know the person who handed over the drive, who is not Russian. There are other additional supporting data. So when SECOND posted - again - that the DNC was 'hacked by Russians', I reposted Signy's post in reply.

Apparently THUGGER believes that ON TOPIC RESPONSES are trolling.

But perhaps this discussion should continue there.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 10:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did they teach you the United States legally adopted the Metric System in 1866? Making it our official measurement system?


Honestly, no. That's something I never picked up on my own in real life before either. If it's our official measurement system for the better part of 150 years now, why are we still not teaching it to our kids or using it in almost anything we do?
Quote:

NASA lost $134 Million when their Mars Climate Orbiter was destroyed when it confused measuring systems.

lol. Yeah. I heard about that one.
Quote:

Canada caused an Emergency Landing on Flight 174 of the Government owned Airline when it forced use of metric measurements, the jet ran out of fuel in mid-flight, at cruising altitude.

Oops!
Quote:

Did you learn how the Fahrenheit scale was created?

I may have. If I did, that info is lost in the ether...
Quote:

The Definition of the Celsius scale is easier to understand, with 0 degrees and 100 degrees.


I'm sure it is, just like any base-10 unit of measurement in the metric system is.

The only problem is that I didn't grow up learning any of them. Instinctively, I know what a mile is in my head. I know what a yard is. I can visualize a gallon of milk. I know what 60 degrees F feels like.

If I'm trying to do anything with metric, I have to think about those conversions. They do not come naturally, since our purposefully ass-backwards public education system intentionally teaches us the inferior system to this day, during our formative years.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Not sure if you understood.
Celsius scale is defined as Zero is the freezing point of water, and 100 is the boiling point of water.

Fahrenheit is defined as Zero equal to the freezing point of ammonia chloride (technology did not exist to create or theorize Kelvan Zero), and 100 was the human body temperature (Mrs. Fahrenheit was running a fever at the time).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 10:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


May is suggest that when THUGR trolls in this thread that we repeatedly and resolutely IGNORE him??

THIS is a thread where we talk to each other, not "at" each other. I prefer that THIS thread not carry on in the same vein as all of the other threads. We have thousands of other threads to bicker in, and only a few to be human.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 31, 2019 10:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What thread did rue post that stuff?

I don't see any pertinent thread with activity.

Quote:

Originally posted by RUE:
A completely different thread. If I ever needed evidence that THUGGER is nothing but a troll, his extended off topic posts here are proof positive.

Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Which thread?

Here's the link from the top of my post. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61853&p=1 I reposted something Signy had posted early in that thread, that dealt with all the technical data about DNC hack v download. Basically, the timestamps embedded in the data couldn't have happened over an internet hack because inet xfer rates are too slow. But it could have happened locally during copying to a portable drive which is much faster. In addition, non-technically, both the 'courier' and Assange state that they know the person who handed over the drive, who is not Russian. There are other additional supporting data. So when SECOND posted - again - that the DNC was 'hacked by Russians', I reposted Signy's post in reply.

Apparently THUGGER believes that ON TOPIC RESPONSES are trolling.

But perhaps this discussion should continue there.

I was wondering which thread you had posted that in, so I could check it out. But if you state that the linked thread contains the entire pertinent content, then that is good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 1, 2019 1:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Getting back to Celsius - as I mentioned, I'm fluent in the lab in Celsius. But for everyday stuff - not so much! Aside from 0C is freezing and 100C is boiling, the only other everyday references I have are 37C which is body temperature, and 21C which is approximate room temperature of 70F. Other than that ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 1, 2019 8:25 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
May is suggest that when THUGR trolls in this thread that we repeatedly and resolutely IGNORE him??

THIS is a thread where we talk to each other, not "at" each other. I prefer that THIS thread not carry on in the same vein as all of the other threads. We have thousands of other threads to bicker in, and only a few to be human.



I agree 100%. It's what we've always done before. I don't know why it didn't happen this time. I was going to say the same thing earlier, but decided against it. But since it was already said, let's just agree on this and ignore anything else.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 1, 2019 8:29 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Not sure if you understood.
Celsius scale is defined as Zero is the freezing point of water, and 100 is the boiling point of water.

Fahrenheit is defined as Zero equal to the freezing point of ammonia chloride (technology did not exist to create or theorize Kelvan Zero), and 100 was the human body temperature (Mrs. Fahrenheit was running a fever at the time).



Nope. I didn't know any of that. Interesting.

Kind of comedic that in 2019 America continues to use a system that isn't even legitimate (Mrs. Fahrenheit was running a fever at the time).

This does not surprise me in the least.



I'd switch to Celcius myself, but my brain has already been broken to all these inferior concepts. Zero for the freezing point and 100 for the boiling point of water is GREAT. Unfortunately, it's everything in between that mean nothing to me at 40 years old.

Like I said before. I know exactly what 60 degrees F feels like. I don't have a clue what 60 degrees C feels like.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 1, 2019 11:17 PM

BRENDA


Cloudy tomorrow then back to rain Wednesday or Thursday.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 2, 2019 2:32 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Not sure if you understood.
Celsius scale is defined as Zero is the freezing point of water, and 100 is the boiling point of water.

Fahrenheit is defined as Zero equal to the freezing point of ammonia chloride (technology did not exist to create or theorize Kelvan Zero), and 100 was the human body temperature (Mrs. Fahrenheit was running a fever at the time).


Nope. I didn't know any of that. Interesting.

Kind of comedic that in 2019 America continues to use a system that isn't even legitimate (Mrs. Fahrenheit was running a fever at the time).

This does not surprise me in the least.

I'd switch to Celcius myself, but my brain has already been broken to all these inferior concepts. Zero for the freezing point and 100 for the boiling point of water is GREAT. Unfortunately, it's everything in between that mean nothing to me at 40 years old.

Like I said before. I know exactly what 60 degrees F feels like. I don't have a clue what 60 degrees C feels like.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

60 degrees C is 140 degrees F. You might not have felt that, but I've had a few of those in the past decade.

One good thing, 40 below Celsius is the same as 40 below Fahrenheit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:35 AM

BRENDA


Beautiful sunny day here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2019 1:12 PM

BRENDA


Rain here for the rest of the week. *sigh*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2019 9:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey there Brenda - I'll keep checking in even when I don't have anything going on to see who's got what happening - and to find out when you get moved!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 3, 2019 9:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So hey Signy

I know you're far more knowledgeable about drought tolerant natives than I am. To some extent it's because I have a lot of examples here in the neighborhood, so I've already seen what grows well and what they look like. I didn't have to do a deep search to come up with plenty of ideas. And also, I have priorities about what I want. Trees and tall shrubs provide shade (aside from directly keeping the lot cooler they prevent reflected light from hitting the walls and windows, which also keeps the heat down), and also allow breezes to blow through under them. And I want solid, level, even footing underneath that's wheelchair- and walker-friendly, and is (mostly) easy on fragile old bones. And I want it to be drought tolerant and low maintenance.

I'm curious what you think of my plan and my plant palette when you get to it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 4, 2019 7:18 PM

THG


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
WSJ op-ed (font and format in original)


Trolling the Mueller Report

Democrats lost on collusion. Now they’re inventing a coverup.

Democrats are still reeling from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians in 2016. But they’ve now hit upon a political comeback strategy: Accuse Attorney General William Barr of a coverup.

That’s the context for Wednesday’s decision by House Democrats to authorize subpoenas, on a partisan vote, demanding that Mr. Barr immediately hand over the entire Mueller report and its supporting evidence. This is intended to give the impression, abetted by a press corps that was fully invested in the collusion story, that Mr. Barr is somehow lying about Mr. Mueller’s real conclusions.

That’s preposterous, since Mr. Barr’s four-page letter quotes directly from Mr. Mueller’s report. The AG surely understood on releasing the summary of conclusions last week that he would be open to contradiction by Mr. Mueller if he took such liberties. Mr. Barr also knew he’d be called to testify before Congress once the rest of the report is released.

Mr. Barr has committed to releasing as much of the report as possible subject to Justice Department rules. He’s working with the special counsel’s office to make redactions required by grand-jury rules of secrecy, intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and “the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.”

Under Justice rules relating to special counsels, Mr. Barr has no obligation to provide anything beyond notifying Congress when an investigation has started or concluded, and whether the AG overruled a special counsel’s decisions. Mr. Barr’s notice to Congress that Mr. Mueller had completed his investigation said Mr. Mueller was not overruled.

Congress has no automatic right to more. The final subparagraph of DOJ’s rule governing special counsels reads: “The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal or administrative.”

Mr. Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr. Mueller’s report as possible. Yet his categories of information for review aren’t frivolous or political inventions. The law protecting grand-jury secrecy is especially strict, as even Democrats admit.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.” This is an acknowledgment that the government must apply to a judge for permission to disclose grand-jury proceedings.

A judge can grant release in certain circumstances—namely to government attorneys who need the information for their duties. None of the secrecy exceptions permit disclosure to Congress or the public. The purpose of this secrecy is to protect the innocent and encourage candor in grand-jury testimony.

It’s true that in 1974 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal judge’s decision to release a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee that was investigating Watergate. Such a sealed report—which juries can choose to produce—is different from raw grand-jury testimony, which is what Democrats are demanding now. The Supreme Court has never ruled on such a disclosure, so Democrats could be facing a long legal battle if Mr. Barr resists their subpoenas.

Mr. Barr should release as much of the report as possible, and on close calls he should side with public disclosure. But no one should think that Democrats are really worried about a coverup. They want to see an unredacted version before the public does so they can leak selected bits that allow them to use friendly media outlets to claim there really was collusion, or to tarnish Trump officials.

The nation is entitled to the Mueller facts in their proper context, not to selective leaks from Democrats trying to revive their dashed hopes of a collusion narrative that the Mueller probe found doesn’t exist.

Appeared in the April 4, 2019, print edition.




T


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey RUE! your plants selections got buried in trolling!

Ok, about thoes plants ...

I have a feijoa, which Im now pruning up into a tree since the previous owners planted it right next to the driveway. It grows great in my yard on summer water every other week. I also have several prunus ilicifolia; I love them, they look beautiful in the shade on water every week, which is about as "wet" as they should get I think. I believe they would flower more with more sun, I've heard they're very tolerant of a wide variety of conditions.

My coffeeberry. sigh. I picked San Bruno, which is small, and it died an ugly death in the shade with weekly water. Too much water, not enough sun, I believe. And my sugarbush, with half day of sun, and water every other week, just has not found its roots. It's very spindly. I think I need to flood the roots and jostle the soil, maybe there's a big air pocket down there.

Overall, your shrubs are very wide and they'll take up a tremendous amount of yard. My personal preference is for shade that I can get under ... trees, not shrubs ... and groundcover. I think I'd need to see your plantings realized because I have a hard time imagining the overall effect.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

nk "The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 4, 2019 9:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey RUE! your plants selections got buried in trolling!

Ok, about thoes plants ...

I have a feijoa, which Im now pruning up into a tree since the previous owners planted it right next to the driveway. It grows great in my yard on summer water every other week. I also have several prunus ilicifolia; I love them, they look beautiful in the shade on water every week, which is about as "wet" as they should get I think. I believe they would flower more with more sun, I've heard they're very tolerant of a wide variety of conditions.

My coffeeberry. sigh. I picked San Bruno, which is small, and it died an ugly death in the shade with weekly water. Too much water, not enough sun, I believe. And my sugarbush, with half day of sun, and water every other week, just has not found its roots. It's very spindly. I think I need to flood the roots and jostle the soil, maybe there's a big air pocket down there.

Overall, your shrubs are very wide and they'll take up a tremendous amount of yard. My personal preference is for shade that I can get under ... trees, not shrubs ... and groundcover. I think I'd need to see your plantings realized because I have a hard time imagining the overall effect.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

nk "The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

There was a very beautiful mixed hedge growing by a street where I got introduced to many of the shrubs I mentioned. I don't mind some sun in the yard as long as there's some shade, and I think sunny green growing things look really pretty contrasted with plain concrete.
The monster feijoa was growing one block down in a neighbor's front yard.
And I came across accidental hollyleaf cherry hedges around a large area that was leveled for a housing development in Fontana, and then abandoned. They were growing around the edge, happy as can be, one next to the other, all different sizes from being self-sown. It was such a cheery hedge with the different shades of green leaves, all sparkling in the sun. Imagine a hedge of small quaking aspen (not that quaking aspen would ever grow as a hedge). It was like that.
I do have two self-sown scrub oaks, and they've made tremendous growth this year with the rains. It's hard to see how tall they are because they've never been pruned - right now they just look like big bushes. Once pruned, they'll look like medium-tall trees.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 4, 2019 10:30 PM

BRENDA


Someone over this weekend decided it was a good idea to have the lady doctor that I work for give a presentation on cooking. A subject which in my opinion she know little to nothing about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 4, 2019 11:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Someone over this weekend decided it was a good idea to have the lady doctor that I work for give a presentation on cooking. A subject which in my opinion she know little to nothing about.

Oh no! From personal experience, I know that there are a lot of nutritious-sounding recipes that are just bleh! This sounds like at the very best it'll be a waste of time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 5, 2019 2:14 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Someone over this weekend decided it was a good idea to have the lady doctor that I work for give a presentation on cooking. A subject which in my opinion she know little to nothing about.

Cooking what?
Grilled cheese? Spaghetti-Os? Mac-n-Cheese?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 5, 2019 3:23 AM

BRENDA


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Someone over this weekend decided it was a good idea to have the lady doctor that I work for give a presentation on cooking. A subject which in my opinion she know little to nothing about.

Cooking what?
Grilled cheese? Spaghetti-Os? Mac-n-Cheese?



She didn't tell me what about cooking she was going to be talking about. But I personally don't think it matters. She really knows nothing about the subject.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL