Politicspolitics

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:21 PM

Seth Rich's Ghost Won't Go Away Judge wants to see proof of Russian hacking DNC

As if it weren’t enough of a downer for Russiagate true-believers that no Trump-Russia collusion was found, federal judges are now demanding proof that Russia hacked into the DNC in the first place.

It is shaping up to be a significant challenge to the main premise of the shaky syllogism that ends with “Russia did it.”

If you’re new to this website, grab onto something, as the following may come as something of a shock. Not only has there never been any credible evidence to support the claim of Russian cyber interference, there has always been a simple alternative explanation that involves no “hacking” at all — by Russia or anyone else.

As most Consortium News habitués are aware, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (which includes two former NSA technical directors), working with independent forensic investigators, concluded two years ago that what “everyone knows to be Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee” actually involved an insider with physical access to DNC computers copying the emails onto an external storage device — such as a thumb drive. In other words, it was a leak, not a hack.

VIPS based its conclusion on the principles of physics applied to metadata and other empirical information susceptible of forensic analysis.

But if a leak, not a hack, who was the DNC insider-leaker? In the absence of hard evidence, VIPS refuses “best-guess”-type “assessments” — the kind favored by the “handpicked analysts” who drafted the evidence-impoverished, so-called Intelligence Community Assessment of Jan. 6, 2017.


Conspiracy Theorists
Simply letting the name “Seth Rich” pass your lips can condemn you to the leper colony built by the Washington Establishment for “conspiracy theorists,” (the term regularly applied to someone determined to seek tangible evidence, and who is open to alternatives to “Russia-did-it.”)

Rich was a young DNC employee who was murdered on a street in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2016. Many, including me, suspect that Rich played some role in the leaking of DNC emails toWikiLeaks. There is considerable circumstantial evidence that this may have been the case. Those who voice such suspicions, however, are, ipso facto, branded “conspiracy theorists.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-13/seth-richs-ghost-wont-go-away

40 replies, 498 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Seth Rich's Ghost Won't Go Away Judge wants to see proof of Russian hacking DNC (Original post)
Badsamm Tuesday OP
Trevor Tuesday #1
Carl Tuesday #2
Trevor Tuesday #5
Carl Wednesday #18
DavesNotHere Tuesday #3
Trevor Tuesday #6
Nostrings Tuesday #13
DavesNotHere Tuesday #15
Trevor Wednesday #20
DavesNotHere Wednesday #22
Trevor Wednesday #23
DavesNotHere Wednesday #25
Trevor Thursday #26
DavesNotHere Thursday #27
Trevor Friday #28
DavesNotHere Friday #29
Trevor Friday #30
DavesNotHere Friday #31
Trevor 10 hrs ago #32
DavesNotHere 8 hrs ago #34
Trevor 5 hrs ago #35
DavesNotHere 42 min ago #39
Trevor Wednesday #21
Nostrings 9 hrs ago #33
Trevor 5 hrs ago #36
Nostrings 3 hrs ago #37
Trevor 2 hrs ago #38
Nostrings 21 min ago #40
New Deal Democrat Wednesday #17
Trevor Wednesday #24
New Deal Democrat Tuesday #7
DavesNotHere Tuesday #14
kevlar Tuesday #4
Trevor Tuesday #8
kevlar Tuesday #9
Trevor Tuesday #10
kevlar Tuesday #11
KittyCatIdiots Tuesday #12
Tolk Wednesday #16
Lowrider1984 Wednesday #19


Response to Trevor (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:49 PM

2. Not debunked in the least,you posted a link full of guesses and opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:51 PM

5. Here's what its based on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 05:23 AM

18. You think that amounts to anything?

Old info presented as some shocking revelation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:50 PM

3. So the FBI did get direct access to the DNC servers then?

That’s how they can be sure the data provided by Guccifer doesn’t match what was actually on the DNC servers.

I’m sure Crowdstrike detailed this in their final report to the DNC, though, so the FBI could just make the Crowdstrike final report they have available and everyone can see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:02 PM

6. Not sure where you are coming from or going.

The FBI got a mirror image of the servers. That's the way it was always done. The FBI didn't need the server anyway because they watched the hack in real time as it happened. They'd been watching the same hackers for years.

The debunking here is of the hoax that claimed the hacked documents had time stamps that proved the documents must have been taken in a download and could not have been taken by hackers. It turns out the timestamps in the hoax documents were forged. The debunker here has tons of details here including who created the hoax and all the details of how it was done.

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links

Much of the information about the hack is classified but I believe a report was issued on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #6)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:04 PM

13. You repeat this garbage as if its the truth.

"The FBI got a mirror image of the servers."

Incorrect. The FBI got what the DNC CLAIMS are mirror images.

The dnc is hip deep involved in this crap, and their word is simply not reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:33 PM

15. Yes, you have the images that the DNC (or CrowdStrike) chose to provide...

and even if the images are actual images of the actual servers, was any "cleanup" done before those images were made? It would seem like if one were trying to use this information in a court, they'd have some chain-of-custody issues. My guess, these images will not be made available to anyone and the prosecution will bend over backwards to keep from having to turn them over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 05:43 PM

20. There was more than one private contractor.

They agree on everything. The conspiracy theories just keep getting more complex. Now Crowd Strike provided false evidence to the FBI? Did you know Crowd Strike is a very reputable company?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrowdStrike

Still no explanation for how the FBI could watch the hack in real time and still be wrong about it. I guess the FBI is in on it too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 06:53 PM

22. What company other than crowdstrike was hired?

And yes, I’m familiar with them.

You would expect that the FBI would be allowed to create their own images, given that the process is not invasive and the only thing they would have access to would be data they would be getting anyway. And, the room the servers and storage was in. Do you think the DNC concern was that they didn’t physically want the FBI in their data center? You suggest that I should trust the FBI, when it’s pretty clear the DNC didn’t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 08:53 PM

23. Crowd Strike, Fidelis and Mandiant (or Fire Eye)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks

There is nothing unusual about providing a mirror image instead of the server itself

https://qdiscovery.com/what-is-a-forensic-image/

I would trust the FBI not to do something like fabricate evidence. I wouldn't trust them to keep my secrets or not arrest me if they came across something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 10:19 PM

25. Thanks for making my point.

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2019, 01:06 AM - Edit history (1)

“I wouldn't trust them to keep my secrets or not arrest me if they came across something.”

I'm familiar with forensic images, and they contain a copy of the system at the time an image is taken. If there's stuff you don't want in that image, you can remove it first before creating the image.

And as far as I know, only Crowdstrike was given access to the servers. I'm not sure that the other companies were even hired by the DNC. The analysis of the other companies was done the same way the FBI did it, based on data provide by Crowdstrike.

And while I'm sure you're not a fan of zerohedge, it does reference a number of other reports including direct comments by the organizations "involved" in the analysis.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/what-crowdstrike-firm-hired-dnc-has-ties-hillary-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #25)

Thu Aug 15, 2019, 09:22 PM

26. I'm not sure exactly what your point was but I'm glad I was able to help.

From my perspective I'm arguing with a conspiracy theorist. No matter how much evidence one provides to a conspiracy theorist the theorist will never concede. They'll find a doubt somewhere and as long as they can come up with one, no matter how far fetched, they will never be convinced.

Your point about the possibility of tampering with the servers before the image was taken I guess is possible. But if it was possible to do that wouldn't it have been easier to just tamper with the servers and then turn the servers themselves over? All this suspicion would have been avoided. Doubting a mirror image is more likely to convince someone.

I don't know right now if the other contractors had access to the servers or not. I expect they had something that convinced them Crowd Strike was right.

You are right that I don't consider Zerohedge to be a reliable source of information. They cite Jason Leopold who I also don't put much faith in either. I went through it twice and can't find the references to other reports, unless you are talking about the government ones. Trump has tried to get his intelligence teams to refute the Russia hacked determinations. Trump got the notion looked at but they came up empty.

As for all the links and guilt by association I'm not convinced by any of it. Have you ever heard of the game six degrees to Kevin Bacon? There used to be a guy on the net named Wayne something or other who went around linking things to one another with things like "their chief counsel's law firm once argued a case for this other party." Wayne was coming up with blockbuster scoops left and right and he got quite a following but I guess it all fizzled when none of his blockbusters held up.

I read before that Crowd Strike also had big name Republican clients.

Do you realized how big and dangerous an operation Zerohedge's version would take? All those people who they found links for were all in on it? It would take some incredible balls to manufacture phony evidence and give it to the FBI, especially on such a high profile matter. All the people who would have to have been included would all have had to stay quiet.

Instead of doubting the prevailing theory why not find proof of your alternative? And consider what all it would take for your alternative to be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 15, 2019, 10:56 PM

27. You suggested I should trust the FBI, and then said that you wouldn't. You just didn't trust them

on something different. In any case, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want. Here's what I think, tell me where I went wrong.

The DNC hired crowdstrike to look into the hack. The FBI was also investigating. The DNC did not allow the FBI to take their own forensic images. They didn't trust them. Maybe they didn't want to give the FBI access to their systems because they didn't trust the FBI not to leak their information or not to prosecute them if they find some other issue. If you believe that crowdstrike created exactly the same forensic images that the FBI would have made, then that doesn't make any sense. The images would contain the very information the DNC would have been concerned about trusting the FBI with. Another possibility is that the DNC had information they didn't want to appear in those images, brought in a guy from crowdstrike, told him what they wanted to not appear in the images (probably by telling him it is sensitive and not relevant to the investigation). The guy from crowdstrike gets rid of it correctly (I'd be surprised if the DNC IT people knew how to do this correctly), and then makes the images. The FBI probably wouldn't have done this, but a guy or two working for a paid contractor might have with the right incentive. It wouldn't take a massive conspiracy to do this, it could have been done by just one or two techs who showed up at the DNC to take the images.

The "debunking" you posted has a theory about how this information could have been faked, and this seems to be legit. This information COULD probably have been faked the way it's described using the outdated zip utility. That doesn't mean it happened, but it could have. If you really wanted to "debunk" this, though, it seems like the FBI or Crowdstrike could do it, and it seems like they'd have every incentive to. They have actual forensic images from the server, hell, crowdstrike had/has access to the actual server. They can see the original file that Guccifer supposedly faked showing the download. They should be able to say, "here's the real file and this information is not in there". As far as I know, neither Crowdstrike or the FBI has actually done that. If the file (probably a system log from the server) is in a forensic image, they'd have a copy of it created BEFORE they were aware of the alteration, so they should be able to show it was a fake. Even if this wasn't in the forensic image for some reason, it should be available in the periodic backups that the DNC surely does on its systems.

I'll be honest, I take what I've seen on zerohedge with more than a grain of salt, but Crowdstrike did use an IISS report to support their claim of Russian hacking (that can be verified) and the IISS did seem to say that Crowdstrike used their report erroneously to support those claims, and that should also be verifiable.

To me, this looks like it was handled by the FBI the same way the Clinton email investigation was, where they came to a conclusion, and then ran an investigation intended to come to that conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #27)

Fri Aug 16, 2019, 09:31 PM

28. A few steps were quickly stepped over here.

Comey says the FBI tried to get the servers but were turned down. The DNC says the FBI never asked them for the servers. For me, all things being equal I would believe the FBI first. But look at this article from the Hill.

"But a former FBI official told The Hill it's not unusual for the bureau to bypass a direct examination of a hacked server.

"In nine out of 10 cases, we don't need access, we don't ask for access, we don't get access. That's the normal ,” Leo Taddeo, a former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBI’s New York office, told The Hill.

“It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up," he added. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient.”

I still lean toward believing the FBI but its not certain. Since its not even certain the the DNC refused to turn the servers over its even more speculative to assign a reason that led to the DNC's decision. I myself offered in discussion here that not wanting to risk the FBI using the information against the DNC would make sense Since then I've read that conducting forensics on a computer contaminates the information that's on it, so mirror images are always used. There are other possible reasons for the DNC to refuse. There was a risk of damage the DNC system. I've also read the the DNC server was actually dozens of computers. I would have been very disruptive to turn them over.

From the Hill:

"Security experts say it's common for lawyers for private organizations to turn down requests from law enforcement for access to servers. Comey has publicly bemoaned that fact, wishing aloud that companies would trust the FBI more.

Companies or private organizations might turn down the FBI over concerns about leaks to the media, or information that might come out in court. IT staff also worry about the FBI possibly damage a company’s system.

A source with experience in both FBI cyber investigations and private sector forensics said over the past five years it's become common to let well-established companies handle forensics — even after the FBI comes in."

All in all I think too much is being made of the FBI not getting the original server.

You say the DNC could have faked the mirror images with nothing but a tech or two. But before it got to the point the DNC would have to know about an intrusion. Let's say a DNC IT tech discovered the intrusion. He would have had to bypass his superiors and go straight to top with the information. So at least one other person is involved. The the top management at the DNC would have had to get hold of somebody in management at Crowd Strike. There's another conspirator. Let's say one Crowd Strike tech can do the job. But he would probably have to communicate with the DNC IT guy to locate what to delete. So already a four person conspiracy is needed. Each participant had to be willing to take major risks that could send them to prison. All four would have to stay quiet and not try to blackmail each other. This is all very unlikely.

My article says there were other copies of Guccifer's files and none of the others had the timestamps.

I believe Crowd Strike got its report of Russian spying on Ukraine wrong and since they say that's what they based their conclusions about Russians hacking the DNC on so that's all called into doubt. However, many have reviewed Crowd Strike's findings and determined they were sound

The FBI no doubt had a conclusion about the DNC hack before digging deeper, since they watched the hack in real time as it went down. This debate has been going on for awhile and I still don't have an explanation for that from the conspiracy theorists.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/312957-fbi-dems-bicker-over-investigation-of-hacked-servers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 16, 2019, 10:51 PM

29. Okay, which option looks worse. The FBI asked and the DNC said no, or the FBI never even bothered

to ask?

You suggest the DNC IT guy "detected" the hack, but I'm not sure the DNC knew they were hacked until Guccifer actually released his first round of information. At that point, everyone from the lowest IT tech to the head of the DNC knew they had a major problem. I don't see an issue that they brought in crowdstrike to investigate, most reasonable organizations would want their own investigation, if for no other reason than the FBI isn't going to give them great advice about how to fix potential issues.

"“It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up," he added. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient.” If he's talking about the FBI just coming in and taking a forensic image, with the help of an in-house tech, then I'm calling bullshit. If the FBI techs can't be trusted to safely image a system, they shouldn't be trusted to do anything at all. I understand why companies may not want to give the FBI access, but it's not really because they don't think the FBI is up to the task. And up until 2017 (when the law was changed), if you wanted to use the forensic image as evidence in court, you had to have the person who actually made it testify to it's authenticity.

As far as the conspiracy goes, it would take a minimum of 3 people. One person at the DNC (upper leadership) to know what needs to be removed. The IT guy wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) know that. The IT guy to know where to find it, and the tech from crowdstrike who actually shows up. No calls need to be made to crowdstrike and their upper management doesn't need to be involved or even aware of it. Since it's the DNC servers and they've hired crowdstrike to do this investigation for them, they can do whatever they want. There is no legal jeopardy to the people at the DNC, and the guy from crowdstrike is only in trouble if HE testifies (or signs and affidavit) to the FBI that the systems weren't altered before he took the image, which I'll bet he didn't do. The images were taken well after the hack, and the systems were up and running for quite a while in the mean time. Of course the images aren't going to be an exact copy from right after the hack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 16, 2019, 11:05 PM

30. I don't believe the tech from Crowd Strike would be willing to falsify the data

if he wasn't told to by his superiors.

When the DNC saw their E-mails in the news they knew something was up. But they wouldn't know how it happened. I don't see how somebody in upper management would know an insider downloaded it. I think somebody at DNC IT would have to discover it.

I don't understand how the people at the DNC would not be in legal jeopardy. Supplying false information to the FBI is at least a felony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 16, 2019, 11:16 PM

31. I've worked with IT techs before, and for the right amount of money, and if convinced that what they

were doing wasn't relevant to their investigation and no one would find out, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

And the DNC did not supply information to the FBI. They didn't make the images. Crowdstrike did. The DNC had every legal right to delete whatever files they wanted to. The DNC would say "don't ask us, crowdstrike made the images", and crowdstrike would say "hey, we created the images based on whatever was on the system at the time, which is all we can do." Short of a very small number of people (as few as 3 people) admitting they did it on purpose (because we all know it's all about intent), the FBI would not be able to prove otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #31)

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 03:00 PM

32. Who would offer the bribe?

Where would they get the money? Wouldn't the funds supplier also have to know about the intrusion? Wouldn't the briber?

If Crowd Strike and the DNC were accusing each other of manipulating the data I'm sure the FBI would be determined to get to the bottom of it. The FBI wouldn't proceed with the Russian hack theory. The whole scandal would probably get leaked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #32)

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 04:59 PM

34. What are you talking about?

The bribe offer comes at the high ranking DNC official, and if you think a DNC official can't come up with 10k or so without explaining in detail what the money is for, you don't really know how politics works. Most of the time, people don't WANT to know where the money is going..

And neither crowdstrike or the DNC are accusing anyone of anything. That's how a conspiracy works. People on both sides work together to do something, and if no one outside of that group catches them, no one talks.

The FBI has almost no way of knowing if the data was manipulated before the images were taken unless one of the very small number of people involved volunteers that information, and none have an incentive to do so. The leadership at the DNC doesn't need to know about it (other than one key person). The leadership at Crowdstrike doesn't need to know about it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #34)

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 08:15 PM

35. Were you ever in the DNC?

I expect they have tight controls on where their money goes. They have to report everything. How do you know about the DNC corruption or all this other corruption, like IT techs taking bribes? And you know about conspiracies? I think that friends one day are enemies the next, especially in politics. Somebody is likely to blab at some point, at least to a spouse or a lover.

My scenario about what would happen if the DNC and Crowd Strike blamed each other comes from your scenario which said they would be willing to manipulate because being two parties the FBI would never know who to blame.

Another flaw in your theory is the DNC didn't know about the download, so how could they have known there was nobody left alive that also knew? There's good chance somebody would have learned about it when the files were transferred to Assange. I'm sure intelligence agencies read his electronic communications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #35)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 01:06 AM

39. So the DNC had tight controls over where their money goes?

So what you're saying is that the DNC officials knew that they were spending "opposition research" money to a law firm, but that money was going to pay a former British spy to collect unverified data from the Russian government sources and attempting to feed that data to the FBI? After all, they keep tight controls on their money, and we know for a fact they spent money of this.

My scenario that they would both blame each other is their "out" if they were somehow caught. "It's not our fault, here's an alternative suspect." That's the pre-made defense just in case it's needed.

And you say that the DNC didn't know about the download. Well, yes they did, but not until AFTER the images should have been made. So, if you have the images, you SHOULD be able to show that the log isn't in there. That was my exact argument in my post up above. If the images were take before the DNC knew about the download (but after it occurred), they'd have pretty good evidence that the whole thing is faked. Surely if they had that sort of evidence, they'd have released it. Why do you suppose that hasn't happened yet?

As far as Crowdstrike removing stuff, I wasn't even referring to the supposed download record in the syslog. I was actually thinking about other dirt that the DNC had on its servers. Maybe a record of emailing debate questions during the primary, maybe it's a record of discussions with the very people they paid for the opposition research. According to reports (and I don't know what's true here) it's unclear if the DNC ever received the results of Fusion GPS's investigation. Given that they spent so much on it, and an assumption that the DNC keeps very tight controls on their money, that seems unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 05:46 PM

21. Wild theories with nothing to back them up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 04:39 PM

33. Incorrect, trevor, as usual.

"Incorrect. The FBI got what the DNC CLAIMS are mirror images."

The above is a factually ccorrect statement. You can not KNOW whether the images given to the FBI were genuine, yet you speak as if you do know.

You're the one operating on an unproven theory there trevor, not me.

You'd call that kook stuff if the roles were reversed.


"The dnc is hip deep involved in this crap, and their word is simply not reliable."

The DNC was involved with fusion gps and the dossier. They have a vested interest in the hack being publicly seen as a legit russian hack.

They are not reliable or trustworthy what so ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #33)

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 08:30 PM

36. Very little is known with exact certainty.

The rational among us look at probabilities. Its most likely that when somebody turns evidence over to the FBI that they haven't manipulated it.

I notice when its something you don't want to believe it takes an enormous amount of proof for it to be a fact. When its something you want to believe, like the DNC and Crowd Strike manipulated data they gave to the FBI, you require no evidence at all. This kind of a habit distorts views.

Do you think the DNC lied about the hack? Think of all that would have to be true for that to be true.

The DNC is far more trustworthy than Seth Rich conspiracy theorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #36)

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 10:18 PM

37. You finally said something true: Very little is known with exact certainty.

"The rational among us look at probabilities."

No trevor. Bookies look at probabilities. The rest of us look at actuality. The guilty and the complicit try to hide or obscure that actuality.


"Its most likely that when somebody turns evidence over to the FBI that they haven't manipulated it."

You say this based on some mythical probability which you can not explain, which you lack data to demonstrate, repeat, or confirm.

"I notice when its something you don't want to believe it takes an enormous amount of proof for it to be a fact."

Your observations are less than informative, and usually niave or grossly ignorant. In this case, you're projecting and I can prove it. You yourself have accepted a conclusion without any proof what so ever, and are pointing the finger at me for asking for some proof where none exists.

Busted, little buddy.

You have accepted as fact, something which has not been proven as fact, and you expect the rest of us to accept is as fact, as you do. When called on it by others, as I have called you on it, your response is to attempt to turn it around and make it about me instead, as you are attempting right now.

Are you under the impression that this is somehow not visible by me?


"When its something you want to believe, like the DNC and Crowd Strike manipulated data they gave to the FBI, you require no evidence at all."

Where did I say that the DNC and crowdstrike manipulated data they gave to the FBI?

You're attempting to lay a very specific conclusion at my feet, which you can not prove that I have drawn trevor.

Shame on you.


"Do you think the DNC lied about the hack?"

I think it very possible that in some form, yes they did.


"Think of all that would have to be true for that to be true."

You're not capable enough to fully consider those ramifications with any degree of accuracy.



"The DNC is far more trustworthy than Seth Rich conspiracy theorists."

If I were to quantify the trustworthiness of the DNC in numerical form, it would be a negative number.

That you suggest otherwise, shows just how blind you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #37)

Sat Aug 17, 2019, 11:44 PM

38. Normal people come up with conclusions

based on experience and world view all the time. Its not just bookies.

My world view is that most people are honest and given the choice will obey the law. My data? How many people are in jail and how many aren't?

I have a great deal of evidence for my conclusion. For one thing I know the DNC was hacked. The intrusion wasn't a download. How do I know that? The FBI watched the hack as it happened in real time, so it must have been a hack. Since it was a hack, the DNC had nothing to hide from the FBI and therefore no reason to take the reckless risk of defrauding the FBI. There's plenty of other evidence, like Crowd Strike's report and the findings of the U.S, intelligence apparatus. Logic! Where is yours?

You wrote, "Incorrect. The FBI got what the DNC CLAIMS are mirror images. The dnc is hip deep involved in this crap," Saying "incorrect" is declaring that what I wrote was wrong. Saying the DNC is hip deep means the DNC was breaking the law. You have zero evidence for this. And you talk about having certainties! And you didn't ask for proof, you just fired it off.

I'm the one making all this about you?

Nostrings writes: "Where did I say that the DNC and crowdstrike manipulated data they gave to the FBI?

You're attempting to lay a very specific conclusion at my feet, which you can not prove that I have drawn trevor.

Shame on you. " Already posted in this post. You said it. Are you in a corner now?

I'm capable of thinking things through and coming up with ramifications. I can think of unlikely things that would have to be true, like the DNC would have to have known in advance that the U.S. intelligence community would go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 01:27 AM

40. Not based on the say so of the DNC and a left leaning third party they don't.

"My world view is that most people are honest and given the choice will obey the law. My data? How many people are in jail and how many aren't?"

My god man. What a completely brainless thing to say.

"I have a great deal of evidence for my conclusion."

I don't see you providing any of it, I see you running your gob.



"For one thing I know the DNC was hacked."

Sure you do.


"The intrusion wasn't a download."

Says trevor and a bunch of left wingers invested in a perceived outcome.


"How do I know that? The FBI watched the hack as it happened in real time, so it must have been a hack."

Watched and did nothing? Are you sure we're talking about the same event trevor?


"Since it was a hack, the DNC had nothing to hide from the FBI and therefore no reason to take the reckless risk of defrauding the FBI."

And they therefore had no reason to deny the fbi access to the servers, yet they did.


"There's plenty of other evidence, like Crowd Strike's report and the findings of the U.S, intelligence apparatus."

Crowdstrike is a left leaning activist org for sale to the highest bidding leftist, and can not simply be trusted without verification any farther than the DNC can. You suggest trust without verification is fine, and you would NEVER EVER say the same thing about Trump/the RNC if the roles were reversed.

If the roles were reversed, and it were Trump and a left leaning org you'd be screaming for proof instead simply accepting of Trump and rightleaningorgs word for it, and everyone here knows that you would.


"Logic! Where is yours?"

How can you ask that, having failed to engage successfully in logic as you have?


"You wrote, "Incorrect. The FBI got what the DNC CLAIMS are mirror images. The dnc is hip deep involved in this crap," "

You're misquoting me and attempting to change what I said trevor. I said "The dnc is hip deep involved in this crap, and their word is simply not reliable." That doesn't mean more than it says, or less than it says. It means EXACTLY what it says and nothing else.

This is whats commonly known as a straw man argument, pretending I made an argument that I did not actually make, and arguing against that instead of the argument I actually put forward. This may pass as sophisticated in your circles trevor, but its child like sophistry in mine.

On top of that, only one of us wants verification, and you're arguing with that person, against it.

"Saying "incorrect" is declaring that what I wrote was wrong."


When you claim to know things which you can not possibly know, you're wrong trevor. Maybe nobody ever let you in on that little secret.


"Saying the DNC is hip deep means the DNC was breaking the law."

Thats the meaning YOU attribute to it, after chopping the other end off of the sentence authored by me in order to make room for it.



"You have zero evidence for this."

Why would I have evidence for a claim I didn't actually make?



"And you talk about having certainties!"


And you speak the word logic?



"And you didn't ask for proof..."

Why would I ask for proof of a claim you're claiming I made, which I actually did not make?


"you just fired it off."


*I* fired off a complete sentence. *You* altered it to make it mean something else. From that point forward, trevor, you take ownership, so YOU fired it off, not me.


"Already posted in this post. You said it. Are you in a corner now?"

Your poorly cobbled together strawman, where you misquoted me and attempted to change what I actually said to something else that I did not say, is that what you're referring to?



"I'm capable of thinking things through and coming up with ramifications."

Yes trevor. You're good enough, and smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like you!

" I can think of unlikely things that would have to be true, like the DNC would have to have known in advance that the U.S. intelligence community would go along."


You seem to think these things are done transparently so that everyone can see them. Thats very niave, particularly given that contrary to the contextual view you seem to have of the intellifgence community as being some sort of facebooky clan who all chit chat amongst themselves, the reality is that you're talking about a very compartmentalized system of networks where one hand can not know what the other hand is doing, and a few bad apples at the top can have bunches of people doing the wrong thing, thinking they're legitimately doing the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 01:21 AM

17. A gallant effort.

You cannot pour tea into a full cup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 08:55 PM

24. Or persuade someone

who has their head encased in cement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:03 PM

7. Where's Obama's real birth certificate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to New Deal Democrat (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:28 PM

14. Sorry, when someone half-asses an investigation, how many times are you allowed to bring it up?

At what point do you just pretend that it was done properly or not address it at all and pretend like it's all legit?

By the way, I'm not talking about the birth certificate, and I never have, but you already knew that. You just thought suggesting it would make your argument look stronger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:00 PM

4. "theory"

Right there in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:09 PM

9. No, it was labeled exactly that.

You will have to do much better than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:34 PM

10. I don't even see where it says theory.

There is overwhelming facts and evidence there. You must be ignoring all that.

I can't do better if you are going to block out information that doesn't suit your objectives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 10:37 PM

11. What are my objectives?

You haven't a clue.

You didn't even read the article you linked.

In typical leftist fashion you misuse the words "fact" and "evidence"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #11)


Response to kevlar (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 12:03 AM

16. He has trouble

With the word "racist" also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tolk (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 11:14 AM

19. And, don't forget,

sleepy, old, pedo Joe says the democrats prefer "truth" not "facts".

The can manufacture their own "truth".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics