REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evidence: The DNC server was not "hacked"

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, July 16, 2018 14:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2628
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, August 11, 2017 1:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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  

Friday, August 11, 2017 8:53 AM

RIVERLOVE


Ooops, there goes another rubber tree plant!

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

Friday, August 11, 2017 11:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It's a long article. For those who want the CliffsNotes version, I underlined the crucial points.

-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

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

Friday, August 11, 2017 4:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's a long article. For those who want the CliffsNotes version, I underlined the crucial points.


What about the Libtard version? Some will only accept that one.

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

Friday, August 11, 2017 4:47 PM

THGRRI


Let the doctor in SIG. He's there to help. SIG, SIG, open the door.








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

Friday, August 11, 2017 9:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Let the doctor in SIG. He's there to help. SIG, SIG, open the door.- THUGR
Well, the usual know-nothing response from THUGR but, HEY! Thanks for the bump!



-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

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

Saturday, August 12, 2017 2:57 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


repost


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.”








Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

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

Sunday, August 13, 2017 9:56 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


I'm not buying it.

Basing the claim on a fast file transfer occuring at sum point iz ludicrous.

Then to karakterize the DNC hack by Russianz az the foundation uv the entire case agenst Trump iz comical.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

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

Sunday, August 13, 2017 11:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Basing the claim on a fast file transfer occuring at sum point iz ludicrous.
File transfer speed limitation is a fact. Unless you want to live in a fantasy world, you're going to have to come to grips with that reality. The files were initially downloaded from the DNC server at speeds far greater than anything achievable over the internet. Therefore, they weren't 'hacked' remotely.
Quote:

Then to karakterize the DNC hack by Russianz az the foundation uv the entire case agenst Trump iz comical.
The author never did that. The author VERY SPECIFICALLY limited facts and conclusions to that ONE SPECIFIC claim about the DNC 'hack'. "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."

BUT ... ... if you accept that file transfer speed limitation is a fact - and you should if you want to be reality-based - then you need to reconsider all the evidence-free claims that were made, reiterated, and insisted on. Because if the DNC files weren't hacked, then what does that say about our 'intelligence' agencies and 'news' media that kept insisting they were? And not only that they were hacked, but that them dirty Rooskies done dood it?




Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

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

Monday, August 14, 2017 5:19 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


"These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined"

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

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

Monday, August 14, 2017 10:41 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
"These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined"

In normal English, the subject of a paragraph is at the beginning, as it was in the article. The entire paragraph addressed the supposed DNC hack and the escalation of claims made ABOUT THAT PURPORTED DNC HACK. And not about any and every other item against Trump. You took a random quote OUT OF CONTEXT and applied it to an entirely different topic.


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.




Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

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

Monday, August 14, 2017 11:25 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, to reiterate the content of the article - the DNC data was downloaded at speeds far exceeding internet capability. That means the DNC data was not remotely 'hacked' by Russia, or anyone else. It wasn't hacked at all. It was downloaded locally to a portable drive.

That puts into question the integrity of the organizations either claiming or 'reporting' that the server was hacked by Russia.




Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

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

Monday, August 14, 2017 11:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


JO, to put this in the simplest of terms ....

If you believe the essential honesty of the person writing the report, then the evidence is that the DNC was not "hacked" by someone on the internet. File transfer speeds do not lie: the internet hardware can't do the impossible.

And while this evidence applies strictly to the claims of Russian "hacking", it not only puts NSA-CIA claims of THIS incident into doubt, by demonstrating that the "Russian hacking" allegation is probably false it also casts doubt on similar allegations made by the same groups. In other words, you should be insisting that allegations of "phishing" etc at this point should be backed up by solid evidence, and not left as naked accusations.

-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

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

Monday, August 14, 2017 6:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


bump for sloppy seconds




Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

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

Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Assange Vows To Prove That Russia Was Not His Source In 3-Hour Meeting With Congressman

In a three hour meeting with Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Julian Assange vowed to provide proof that Russia was not the source of his leaks last year and promised more 'helpful' information in the near future. Rohrabacher recounted the details of the meeting with Assange to The Hill:

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC emails during last year's presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails."

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Donald Trump.

“Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,” he added.


Of course, this is hardly the first time that Assange has publicly denied that Russia was his source for the DNC and/or Podesta leaks. Back in January, Assange recorded an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News and unequivocally stated that "our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party."

HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party ... Obama is trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President.


So, what does Assange want in return for his evidence that could completely undermine Special Counsel Mueller's entire investigation? Apparently he would like for Wikileaks to be granted a seat in the White House press corps...oh, and we're sure a presidential pardon would be welcome as well.

MORE AT http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-17/assange-vows-proof-russia-was
-not-his-source-3-hour-meeting-congressman



-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

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

Friday, July 13, 2018 12:50 PM

JJ


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki: August 2017

So, to reiterate the content of the article - the DNC data was downloaded at speeds far exceeding internet capability. That means the DNC data was not remotely 'hacked' by Russia, or anyone else. It wasn't hacked at all. It was downloaded locally to a portable drive.

That puts into question the integrity of the organizations either claiming or 'reporting' that the server was hacked by Russia.

As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.



And now we have 25 Russian intelligence officers and three Russian companies indicted. Up yours comrade kiki...

T


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

Friday, July 13, 2018 12:53 PM

REAVERFAN


Oh, noes! The DEEP STATE!!!

1. ANOTHER ONE42 minutes ago
Mueller Indicts 12 Russian Officers for Hacking Dems in 2016
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-indicts-12-russian-officers-for-
hacking-dems-in-2016

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

Friday, July 13, 2018 12:56 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JJ:
And now we have 25 Russian intelligence officers and three Russian companies indicted. Up yours comrade kiki...

The Justice Department announced indictments in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election against 12 Russian nationals, accusing them of engaging in a "sustained effort" to hack Democrats' emails and computer networks.
All 12 defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian federation intelligence agency within the main intelligence directorate of the Russian military, who were acting in "their official capacities."

The indictment . . . emerged two days before Trump is due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin — who has denied election meddling — in Helsinki for a summit that includes a one-on-one meeting with only interpreters present.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/12-russians-indicted-in-mueller-invest
igation/ar-AAA2096?ocid=spartandhp


Will Trump ask Putin to send the 12 Russians to the USA for trial? No. Trump will claim they are not guilty based on Putin's word.


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Friday, July 13, 2018 1:04 PM

JJ


A point of interest. Trump was informed this was going down days ago yet he let the Republicans hold the Peter Zrock hearings anyway. If they looked stupid and corrupt yesterday after all was said and done, and they did, imagine what they're going to look like by the end of business today.

33 indictments so far, 28 involving Russia.

Ya gotta love it...

T


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

Friday, July 13, 2018 1:46 PM

JJ



All 12 defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian federation intelligence agency within the main intelligence directorate of the Russian military, who were acting in "their official capacities.


T


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

Friday, July 13, 2018 2:37 PM

REAVERFAN


The Same Day Trump Called for Russia to Hack Clinton's Emails, They ... Hacked Her Emails
Also, a candidate for U.S. Congress asked for and received stolen documents from Russian hackers.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a22142188/rod-rosenstein-indictm
ent-russia-hack-collusion
/

Boy, it must suck to be a Russian troll today, eh, kiki?

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

Friday, July 13, 2018 6:51 PM

REAVERFAN


Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller officially repudiate a major Trump conspiracy theory
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/13/rod-j-rosens
tein-and-robert-s-mueller-iii-officially-rebuke-a-major-trump-conspiracy-theory/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0b53496a54a2


Trump has regularly cast doubt upon the idea that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by the Russians — and that it was hacked at all. At one point he even reportedly dispatched a conspiracy theorist to meet with then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo. (Pompeo is now secretary of state.)

“This is all information that has been out there for many years. Much of it is false and/or entirely inaccurate,” Trump said in a statement after the DNC hack was revealed in the summer of 2016. “We believe it was the DNC that did the 'hacking' as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. Too bad the DNC doesn't hack Hillary Clinton's 33,000 missing emails.”

At his first presidential debate with Clinton in September 2016, Trump added a number of other potential perpetrators, despite clear indications from the intelligence community that it was Russia. He even said it could have been a severely overweight American.

“I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t — maybe it was,” Trump said. “I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay? You don’t know who broke into DNC.”

Yes. Yes, we do.

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

Friday, July 13, 2018 6:54 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


meh

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Friday, July 13, 2018 9:53 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
meh

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Either Putin gives Mueller evidence that Trump conspired with 12 Russian hackers or else Trump blows Putin in Helsinki one-on-one meeting.
www.wsj.com/articles/the-risks-lying-within-donald-trumps-one-on-one-m
eeting-with-vladimir-putin-1531145446


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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 1:03 AM

REAVERFAN


What do I do now, boss?


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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 6:32 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:

What do I do now, boss?

"He just — every time he sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that.' And I believe — I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it," Trump told reporters in November after meeting with Putin at a global summit in Vietnam.

This week, Trump told reporters he will "of course" raise the election issue with Putin, but he didn't seem to feel it would be a fruitful conversation. "What am I going to do? He may deny it," Trump said.

The Russia investigation is losing ground in the public opinion battle. Polls suggest Trump's repeated attacks on it are working, with a new Washington Post-Schar School poll finding Americans are split roughly 50-50 along partisan lines on whether they approve of the job Mueller is doing.

This indictment comes at the end of a week where both sides felt they had evidence to make their case that the Russia investigation has either run its course or is very real.

And indicting Russians is a win in the column of the "very real" camp.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller’s-indictment-of-12-russians-la
nds-at-a-really-awkward-moment-for-trump/ar-AAA2n9p?ocid=spartandhp


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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 6:51 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
meh

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Either Putin gives Mueller evidence that Trump conspired with 12 Russian hackers or else Trump blows Putin in Helsinki one-on-one meeting.
www.wsj.com/articles/the-risks-lying-within-donald-trumps-one-on-one-m
eeting-with-vladimir-putin-1531145446




This right here is the shit I'm talking about.

How can anybody think that they're talking to a reasonable person that would refer to anything the President was doing as "blowing" another world leader?

No matter what the outcome is in the end, Trump will always be guilty of something in your eyes. He's been "guilty" of a very many things that you've posted about over the last 2 years now.



You wonder why people have lost interest? It's not because of anything that Trump has been tweeting. It's because most people lie somewhere in the middle, and they're just as sick of watching people like you, and especially people in the MSM such as the late show hosts saying things like "Trump's mouth is Putin's cock holster" and Ivanka is a "Cunt".




Meanwhile... all I see is good things happening. Potential Russian spies are being exposed, and over the course of the last 2 years dozens of high profile people on either side of the aisle have either resigned, gotten fired, gotten into legal trouble or a combination of the above.

Been saying since the early 2000's that this government needs an enema.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 8:06 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
meh

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Either Putin gives Mueller evidence that Trump conspired with 12 Russian hackers or else Trump blows Putin in Helsinki one-on-one meeting.
www.wsj.com/articles/the-risks-lying-within-donald-trumps-one-on-one-m
eeting-with-vladimir-putin-1531145446




This right here is the shit I'm talking about.

How can anybody think that they're talking to a reasonable person that would refer to anything the President was doing as "blowing" another world leader?

No matter what the outcome is in the end, Trump will always be guilty of something in your eyes. He's been "guilty" of a very many things that you've posted about over the last 2 years now.



You wonder why people have lost interest? It's not because of anything that Trump has been tweeting. It's because most people lie somewhere in the middle, and they're just as sick of watching people like you, and especially people in the MSM such as the late show hosts saying things like "Trump's mouth is Putin's cock holster" and Ivanka is a "Cunt".




Meanwhile... all I see is good things happening. Potential Russian spies are being exposed, and over the course of the last 2 years dozens of high profile people on either side of the aisle have either resigned, gotten fired, gotten into legal trouble or a combination of the above.

Been saying since the early 2000's that this government needs an enema.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6ix, you didn't click on the link to the Wall Street Journal, did you? This is why Trump voters, but only the ones that are not wealthy, get fucked over by life in areas far away from politics -- you goddamn morons cannot even spot an obvious conman and fraudster like Trump. That guy had a long history of cheating dummies like you and you ignored all of it because Trump told you it was "fake" history. That makes you GOP voters (except for the rich ones who knew they would only get a tax break if Trump was elected) complete idiots. And you sure as hell can't tell somebody is lying to you for their own profit. You guys deserve your screwed up lives. You earned your place in the lower 50% of Americans. Keep playing your penny-ante games while Trump and the wealthy steal your money. Don't ever stop and think.
www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-affect-wealthy-benefits-2017-12

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 9:15 AM

REAVERFAN


Reichwingers don't want to believe facts and evidence. Their beliefs are based entirely on emotion.

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 9:26 AM

REAVERFAN

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 9:37 AM

JJ


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Reichwingers don't want to believe facts and evidence. Their beliefs are based entirely on emotion.



Yep, and they are mired in tribalism.

T


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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 9:41 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
meh

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Either Putin gives Mueller evidence that Trump conspired with 12 Russian hackers or else Trump blows Putin in Helsinki one-on-one meeting.
www.wsj.com/articles/the-risks-lying-within-donald-trumps-one-on-one-m
eeting-with-vladimir-putin-1531145446




This right here is the shit I'm talking about.

How can anybody think that they're talking to a reasonable person that would refer to anything the President was doing as "blowing" another world leader?

No matter what the outcome is in the end, Trump will always be guilty of something in your eyes. He's been "guilty" of a very many things that you've posted about over the last 2 years now.



You wonder why people have lost interest? It's not because of anything that Trump has been tweeting. It's because most people lie somewhere in the middle, and they're just as sick of watching people like you, and especially people in the MSM such as the late show hosts saying things like "Trump's mouth is Putin's cock holster" and Ivanka is a "Cunt".




Meanwhile... all I see is good things happening. Potential Russian spies are being exposed, and over the course of the last 2 years dozens of high profile people on either side of the aisle have either resigned, gotten fired, gotten into legal trouble or a combination of the above.

Been saying since the early 2000's that this government needs an enema.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

6ix, you didn't click on the link to the Wall Street Journal, did you? This is why Trump voters, but only the ones that are not wealthy, get fucked over by life in areas far away from politics -- you goddamn morons cannot even spot an obvious conman and fraudster like Trump. That guy had a long history of cheating dummies like you and you ignored all of it because Trump told you it was "fake" history. That makes you GOP voters (except for the rich ones who knew they would only get a tax break if Trump was elected) complete idiots. And you sure as hell can't tell somebody is lying to you for their own profit. You guys deserve your screwed up lives. You earned your place in the lower 50% of Americans. Keep playing your penny-ante games while Trump and the wealthy steal your money. Don't ever stop and think.
www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-affect-wealthy-benefits-2017-12

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly



I'm not a GOP voter. I LOUDLY voted against GWB his second term. I somewhat regularly vote against the GOP in local and state level elections. I also vote against any sitting judge no matter their political affiliation. I have a long history here posting about that.

The problem is that on a Presidential level as well as a US house/senate level, the Democratic party has become the one who actively attacks both males and whites in general. I don't know how many fucking times I have to bring up the problems that Democrats today have with identity politics, but I will not actively vote for a party who views my very existence as a problem. (Even T will agree with me on this one)


Fix your fucking party. You've got 2 years to do it, or you're going to get a 2 term Trump. Don't think for a second any of the circle-jerk material you've all been masturbating to the last few days is going to lead to an impeachment that's going to stick. If you want Trump out in 2 years, you need to do it the right way.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 9:50 AM

REAVERFAN

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 2:14 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:


What do I do now, boss?

"He just — every time he sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that.' And I believe — I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it," Trump told reporters in November after meeting with Putin at a global summit in Vietnam.

This week, Trump told reporters he will "of course" raise the election issue with Putin, but he didn't seem to feel it would be a fruitful conversation. "What am I going to do? He may deny it," Trump said.

The Russia investigation is losing ground in the public opinion battle. Polls suggest Trump's repeated attacks on it are working, with a new Washington Post-Schar School poll finding Americans are split roughly 50-50 along partisan lines on whether they approve of the job Mueller is doing.

This indictment comes at the end of a week where both sides felt they had evidence to make their case that the Russia investigation has either run its course or is very real.

And indicting Russians is a win in the column of the "very real" camp.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller’s-indictment-of-12-russians-la
nds-at-a-really-awkward-moment-for-trump/ar-AAA2n9p?ocid=spartandhp


Did Mueller's Fishing Expedition net a minnow?

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 2:30 PM

JJ


Ms. Pelosi sent a letter in early September to Mr. Ryan. Neither received a response. By October, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a “super PAC” tied to Mr. Ryan, had used the stolen material in another advertisement, attacking Mr. Garcia during the general election in Florida.

Notice the timing on this. Pelosi sent a letter to Ryan in early September and by October, his super PAC had used the stolen material in an ad attacking Garcia in Florida.

T


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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 2:40 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did Mueller's Fishing Expedition net a minnow?



A giant school of fish. So many, in fact, it will take a very long time to sentence and imprison them all.

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 6:31 PM

JJ


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:


Did Mueller's Fishing Expedition net a minnow?



Four former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Five of these people (including three former Trump aides) have already pleaded guilty.

Stay tuned, more to come dummy.

T


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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 6:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Any so-called "investigation" of the DNC emails which does not include talking with Assange (who does, after all, know the identity of the person who gave him the emails) is a farce. Since Mueller didn't ask Assange who he got the emails from, this is just Mueller's farcical story-spinning, timed to interfere with Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin.

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

As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.

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

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:15 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Any so-called "investigation" of the DNC emails which does not include talking with Assange (who does, after all, know the identity of the person who gave him the emails) is a farce. Since Mueller didn't ask Assange who he got the emails from, this is just Mueller's farcical story-spinning, timed to interfere with Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin.

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

As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.

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



What I'm trying to get RF to admit is that if there was any "Russian Meddling" in the election, that it was exposing the corruption of the DNC and the collusion between the DNC and the MSM, particularly CNN.

If the only thing they have to blame on Russia here is the leaks of those emails, it's really a hypocritical ground they stand on.

"No fair. Your guys cheated by exposing how we were cheating!!!"

That's not a valid platform.



Do I agree with them that we need to get the Russians the hell away from our government if they have infiltrated on any level?

You're damn right I do.

I'm just laughing about the rest of this though.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 10:14 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:


What do I do now, boss?

"He just — every time he sees me, he says, 'I didn't do that.' And I believe — I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it," Trump told reporters in November after meeting with Putin at a global summit in Vietnam.

This week, Trump told reporters he will "of course" raise the election issue with Putin, but he didn't seem to feel it would be a fruitful conversation. "What am I going to do? He may deny it," Trump said.

The Russia investigation is losing ground in the public opinion battle. Polls suggest Trump's repeated attacks on it are working, with a new Washington Post-Schar School poll finding Americans are split roughly 50-50 along partisan lines on whether they approve of the job Mueller is doing.

This indictment comes at the end of a week where both sides felt they had evidence to make their case that the Russia investigation has either run its course or is very real.

And indicting Russians is a win in the column of the "very real" camp.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller’s-indictment-of-12-russians-la
nds-at-a-really-awkward-moment-for-trump/ar-AAA2n9p?ocid=spartandhp


Did Mueller's Fishing Expedition net a minnow?

naw, more like a sardine. Unsavory.

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

Saturday, July 14, 2018 11:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Half a year after Rich’s -never solved- murder, in the first months of 2017, the US Department of Defense was involved in negotiations with Assange in which the latter was offered -temporary- ‘safe passage’ from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he is holed up, in exchange for Assange ‘redacting’ a batch of files on the CIA known as Vault 7.

These negotiations were suddenly halted in April 2017 through the interference of James Comey -then FBI chief- and Mark Warner, a US Senator (D-VA). In the talks, Assange had offered to prove that no Russians were involved in the process that led to WikiLeaks receiving the files.

Today, of course, Assange is completely incommunicado in the Ecuador embassy, so he cannot defend himself against the Mueller accusations. Mueller really doesn’t have to prove anything: he can say what he wants. Comey and Warner prevented Assange from providing evidence exonerating ‘the Russians’, and Assange has been shut down.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-14/true-meaning-collusion-expos
ed


JSF: I have found that "conservatives" ALSO lack honesty. It's not just "libtards" who lie and twist history. The reason why "libtards" are so dishonest NOW is because they have been thwarted from achieving their goals, and their nemesis is in office, leaving them in the position of "anything goes" in order to get their way. If the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary was in office, I suspect the right would be engaging in similar behavior. I find that MOST people have no idea how to apply their ethics to themselves as well as others.

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

As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.

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

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 12:06 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

JSF: I have found that "conservatives" ALSO lack honesty. It's not just "libtards" who lie and twist history. The reason why "libtards" are so dishonest NOW is because they have been thwarted from achieving their goals, and their nemesis is in office, leaving them in the position of "anything goes" in order to get their way. If the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary was in office, I suspect the right would be engaging in similar behavior. I find that MOST people have no idea how to apply their ethics to themselves as well as others.



This.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 12:11 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Half a year after Rich’s -never solved- murder, in the first months of 2017, the US Department of Defense was involved in negotiations with Assange in which the latter was offered -temporary- ‘safe passage’ from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he is holed up, in exchange for Assange ‘redacting’ a batch of files on the CIA known as Vault 7.

These negotiations were suddenly halted in April 2017 through the interference of James Comey -then FBI chief- and Mark Warner, a US Senator (D-VA). In the talks, Assange had offered to prove that no Russians were involved in the process that led to WikiLeaks receiving the files.

Today, of course, Assange is completely incommunicado in the Ecuador embassy, so he cannot defend himself against the Mueller accusations. Mueller really doesn’t have to prove anything: he can say what he wants. Comey and Warner prevented Assange from providing evidence exonerating ‘the Russians’, and Assange has been shut down.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-14/true-meaning-collusion-expos
ed


JSF: I have found that "conservatives" ALSO lack honesty. It's not just "libtards" who lie and twist history. The reason why "libtards" are so dishonest NOW is because they have been thwarted from achieving their goals, and their nemesis is in office, leaving them in the position of "anything goes" in order to get their way. If the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary was in office, I suspect the right would be engaging in similar behavior. I find that MOST people have no idea how to apply their ethics to themselves as well as others.

In the face of overwhelming demonstration on this board that the "Conservative" posters do not regularly change or redact their posts once the post is completed, while the other end of the spectrum constantly does, your assertion falls thunderously flat.

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 1:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

In the face of overwhelming demonstration on this board that the "Conservative" posters do not regularly change or redact their posts once the post is completed, while the other end of the spectrum constantly does, your assertion falls thunderously flat.
Well, I DO have to say that when I was excoriating GWB here, the most "patriotic" (pro-military) right-wingers here (GEEZER, FINN, AURAPTOR etc) didn't, as far as I recall, devolve to the point of trolling, name-calling, and libel ... like so many of the self-styled "progressives" here now. They generally stuck to the topic, and discussed issues like adults. The so-called "progressives" who remain here are a particularly noxious bunch of trolls.

BUT. When Obama was elected, the right wing did things like share pictures of Obama with a bulls-eye superimposed, or as a watermelon-and-fried-chicken-eating monkey. They whinged endlessly about the "birther" conspiracy when - as far as I could tell, having looked deeply into the topic - there was no evidence behind it. And while they were all up-in-arms about Obama opening the government's budgetary veins into health insurance and big pharma coffers, they were silent when GWB did the same thing with Medicare part D. Also, when they supported GWB with his "unitary executive" they failed to predict that Obama would use the same rationale to write HIS Executive Orders, which they howled about later. Failed to notice that Obama continued along the same Constitution-shredding lines as GWB, and continued to believe that "trickle down" works when every attempt has blown up every budget and increased the wealth gap with every implementation. So, I find right-wingers HERE to be more polite and on-topic than the so-called progressives, but not any more objective.

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

As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.

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

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 2:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, July 13, 2018
Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election

There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.

Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens.

indictment here
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4599146-Netyksho-Et-Al-Indictm
ent-Copy.html





SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 3:19 PM

REAVERFAN


Yet, the DNC was absolutely hacked.

/end thread

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 3:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


According to the DoJ "Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens."

Need I point out that an indictment is not evidence?




SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 3:30 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, July 13, 2018
Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election

There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.

Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. At trial, prosecutors must introduce credible evidence that is sufficient to prove each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the unanimous satisfaction of a jury of twelve citizens.

indictment here
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4599146-Netyksho-Et-Al-Indictm
ent-Copy.html





SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:04 PM

JJ


The nuts are out in force reaverfan. Funny to watch. I'd add that facts rule in a court of law and not delusional propaganda. Trump and his associates are learning this lesson the hard way. So are the nuts posting here.

T


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

Sunday, July 15, 2018 4:37 PM

JJ


kiki you are a waste as a human being. Get with the facts and stop posting irrelevant shit. Go back to your first posts in this thread. Boy have you been losing ground. Every time Mueller follows a lead he finds another Russian hiding under a rock.

T


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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Wed, July 18, 2018 15:59 - 1170 posts
Something to feel good about
Wed, July 18, 2018 15:54 - 67 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Wed, July 18, 2018 14:48 - 689 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Wed, July 18, 2018 11:51 - 1538 posts
The Evidens
Wed, July 18, 2018 11:14 - 992 posts
This is Why Trump is a SCUMBAG!
Wed, July 18, 2018 11:10 - 476 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Wed, July 18, 2018 09:30 - 185 posts
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Wed, July 18, 2018 08:38 - 544 posts
Trump-Putin summit July 14
Tue, July 17, 2018 20:32 - 24 posts
Anonymous
Tue, July 17, 2018 09:55 - 30 posts
Another nasty Obama surprise - you only rent your citizenship rights from the IRS
Tue, July 17, 2018 09:17 - 9 posts
The Weekly List
Tue, July 17, 2018 07:02 - 5 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL