Politicspolitics

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 07:21 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

123 replies, 2426 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 123 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 Aug 2019 OP
Trevor Aug 2019 #1
Carl Aug 2019 #2
Trevor Aug 2019 #5
Carl Aug 2019 #18
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #3
Trevor Aug 2019 #6
Nostrings Aug 2019 #13
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #15
Trevor Aug 2019 #20
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #22
Trevor Aug 2019 #23
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #25
Trevor Aug 2019 #26
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #27
Trevor Aug 2019 #28
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #29
Trevor Aug 2019 #30
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #31
Trevor Aug 2019 #32
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #34
Trevor Aug 2019 #35
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #39
Trevor Aug 2019 #41
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #43
Trevor Aug 2019 #44
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #45
Trevor Aug 2019 #46
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #47
Trevor Aug 2019 #49
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #50
Trevor Aug 2019 #51
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #53
Trevor Aug 2019 #55
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #60
Trevor Aug 2019 #61
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #64
Trevor Aug 2019 #67
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #75
Trevor Aug 2019 #21
Nostrings Aug 2019 #33
Trevor Aug 2019 #36
Nostrings Aug 2019 #37
Trevor Aug 2019 #38
Nostrings Aug 2019 #40
Trevor Aug 2019 #48
Nostrings Aug 2019 #52
Trevor Aug 2019 #54
kevlar Aug 2019 #56
Nostrings Aug 2019 #58
Trevor Aug 2019 #63
Nostrings Aug 2019 #65
Trevor Aug 2019 #66
Nostrings Aug 2019 #70
Trevor Aug 2019 #71
Nostrings Aug 2019 #72
Trevor Aug 2019 #73
Nostrings Aug 2019 #76
Trevor Aug 2019 #77
Nostrings Aug 2019 #78
Trevor Aug 2019 #81
Nostrings Aug 2019 #85
Trevor Aug 2019 #86
Nostrings Aug 2019 #88
Trevor Aug 2019 #89
kevlar Aug 2019 #91
Nostrings Aug 2019 #92
Trevor Aug 2019 #93
Nostrings Aug 2019 #94
Trevor Aug 2019 #95
Nostrings Aug 2019 #96
Trevor Aug 2019 #97
Nostrings Aug 2019 #98
Trevor Aug 2019 #99
Nostrings Aug 2019 #100
Trevor Aug 2019 #102
Nostrings Aug 2019 #103
Trevor Aug 2019 #104
Nostrings Aug 2019 #105
Trevor Aug 2019 #106
Nostrings Aug 2019 #107
Trevor Aug 2019 #108
Nostrings Aug 2019 #109
Trevor Aug 2019 #112
Nostrings Aug 2019 #113
Trevor Aug 2019 #114
Nostrings Aug 2019 #115
Trevor Aug 2019 #116
Nostrings Aug 2019 #117
Trevor Aug 2019 #118
Nostrings Aug 2019 #119
Trevor Aug 2019 #120
Nostrings Aug 2019 #121
Trevor Aug 2019 #122
Nostrings Aug 2019 #123
New Deal Democrat Aug 2019 #17
Trevor Aug 2019 #24
oflguy Aug 2019 #42
Trevor Aug 2019 #57
oflguy Aug 2019 #59
Trevor Aug 2019 #62
kevlar Aug 2019 #68
Trevor Aug 2019 #69
kevlar Aug 2019 #74
Trevor Aug 2019 #79
kevlar Aug 2019 #80
Trevor Aug 2019 #82
kevlar Aug 2019 #83
Trevor Aug 2019 #84
kevlar Aug 2019 #87
quad489 Aug 2019 #90
New Deal Democrat Aug 2019 #7
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #14
ThreeSparkles Aug 2019 #110
DavesNotHere Aug 2019 #111
kevlar Aug 2019 #4
Trevor Aug 2019 #8
kevlar Aug 2019 #9
Trevor Aug 2019 #10
kevlar Aug 2019 #11
KittyCatIdiots Aug 2019 #12
Tolk Aug 2019 #16
Lowrider1984 Aug 2019 #19
Badsamm Aug 2019 #101


Response to Trevor (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 07:49 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, 08:51 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, 04:23 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, 07:50 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, 09:02 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, 10:04 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, 10:33 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, 04:43 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, 05:53 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, 07:53 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, 09:19 PM

25. Thanks for making my point.

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2019, 12:06 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, 08:22 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, 09:56 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, 08:31 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, 09:51 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, 10:05 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, 10:16 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, 02:00 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, 03:59 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, 07:15 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, 12:06 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 DavesNotHere (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 10:34 AM

41. The DNC knew they were paying for campaign legal services and opposition research.

You haven't found a comparison where large sums of money went to no known purpose. I doubt the DNC would have wanted to pay for false information.

The pre-made defense isn't plausible.

I'm sorry. I don't understand your point about the DNC knowing and the images. If the DNC didn't know about the download before the image was taken then they wouldn't have known to take the download out. I don't understand the faked point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #41)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 11:18 AM

43. Large sum of money? We might be talking about $5-10k

To a tech, not 500k.

Here’s what I’m saying about the potentially altered images...

The DNC finds out it’s been hacked, not because their internal IT or security department is top notch, but because someone releases info that they know must have been stolen.

They talk to their own IT to find out if they can figure it out on their own and they can’t.

Maybe the FBI asks for access, maybe they don’t. The DNC discusses how they can get this figured out. Someone says they can let the FBI look into it. Someone from IT says the FBI will have access to their servers... all of it, and someone else in the room raises their eyebrows in concern. Then it is suggested that a company like Crowdstrike could do it. They’d work for the DNC, and they could provide their evidence and findings to the FBI.

Now, someone at the DNC, knowing that a third party is coming in to look over their data starts trying to figure out what information they don’t want looked over. They ask an IT guy if they can delete it or hide it. The IT guy tells them he can delete files, but they won’t really be gone from the forensic image, and there will be metadata about them. A better person to do this might be the guy from crowdstrike. Another possibility is they could bring in another expert to do this before crowdstrike even comes in (I haven’t said this before, but also a possibility).

A person, crowdstrike or otherwise, cleans up what they don’t want in the images, and then makes the images.

At this point, the DNC knows about the hack, but they DON’T know about this alleged download record, so they didn’t know to remove it. If the image was made after the alleged download, than that file would be in the forensic image in tact and unaltered. They could simply go to the image for the correct server, look at the log, and see if that record is there. If it is, it’s likely not a fake. If it isn’t, it likely is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #43)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 07:09 PM

44. How do you know how much cash a tech would sell out for?

I think if somebody wanted $10K from the DNC the accounting department would want to know what it was for.

There was no download.

The FBI followed Fancy Bear all over the place. Fancy Bear made lots of hacks. In the process of hacking the DNC Fancy Bear installed malware. So if Crowd Strike was going to fake the records they would have to create the malware and install it on the DNC server. Wouldn't that be hard? Fancy Bear hacked the DCCC and other Clinton underlings. Did Crowd Strike manage to get all that faked too?

How do you explain away all this?

Russia hackers pursued Putin foes, not just US Democrats

https://apnews.com/3bca5267d4544508bb523fa0db462cb2

pp. 36-41

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions
in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber
Incident Attribution

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Also, U.S. intelligence intercepted Putin's orders for the whole operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 07:15 PM

45. This is all pretty easily settled if the FBI produces the forensic images

To show that the download didn’t occur. The idea that this download couldn’t have happened because they may have also been hacked doesn’t make sense. But you already knew that.

It’s funny that you keep asking me for proof of things while defending a theory that has no proof (that the download record is a fake).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #45)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 07:54 PM

46. If there was a hack I don't see why you think the DNC would falsify information.

The FBI isn't going to turn the private DNC's servers over to the public. Forget about it. Even if the FBI turned everything over you would just say it was forged, like the birthers did with birth certificates. Where did I say the download record is a fake? That thing the intelligence veterans came out with? I debunked that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #46)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 08:21 PM

47. I have been saying the FBI should turn over the syslog and

I would find that pretty convincing. The syslog wouldn’t reveal any data from the DNC, just system data and metadata. It’s pretty clear that you are arguing here but don’t really understands how this all works. Why are YOU telling ME how I would react when I’ve already said what I would find convincing?

And no, you didn’t debunk anything. Someone pointed out this file that supposedly shows download speeds well in excess of what an external hacker might get. They said this proves it was an on-site download. Another group (your “debunking”) suggests a way to create this information after the fact. Neither is conclusive evidence of what actually happened. I’ve told you how to go about figuring it out, over and over, and it involves getting the syslog from the forensic image.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #47)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 09:32 PM

49. I had to look up what a syslog is.

I'll take your word that you would be convinced it you had it. I was guessing how you would react by how you have reacted so far.

My debunking had more than an explanation of how the time stamps could have been faked. It had details on who did it, how they did it, when they did it, etc. It also said the time stamps were only on the records from GucciferII.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 10:12 PM

50. A syslog would always contain timestamps. If someone connected a device to a server,

It would record the connection. If someone downloaded info, it would record that a file transfer occurred, though it likely wouldn’t specify which files. They are used for auditing purposes, so timestamps are (as far as I’ve ever seen) always used.

If you find the server that was used, the forensic image, if created after the supposed download, should show it. If it isn’t there, I would consider that pretty conclusive evidence that it didn’t occur. The FBI, the DNC, and crowdstrike should all have copies of the images with the evidence they’d need to debunk this. Actually, Crowdstrike may no longer have them, but the FBI probably still does.

Would you disagree with that assessment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #50)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 10:18 PM

51. Are you saying the FBI should debunk the Seth Rich conspiracy theory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #51)

Mon Aug 19, 2019, 12:32 AM

53. Im saying the FBI has the information to debunk this particular

Aspect of it. The DNC should as well. They have chosen not to try to do that so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #53)

Mon Aug 19, 2019, 08:47 PM

55. They have no reason to.

This conspiracy theory isn't posing a threat. And the stuff they would have to share is classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #55)

Tue Aug 20, 2019, 12:00 AM

60. Nothing on the DNC servers is classified.

The government has classified material, political parties don’t. And a syslog wouldn’t reveal any “secrets”, unless you consider server metadata a risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #60)

Tue Aug 20, 2019, 05:46 PM

61. Its part of an ongoing counter-intelligence probe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #61)

Tue Aug 20, 2019, 09:24 PM

64. So if I understand you correctly...

You are saying that:
1. The investigation of the DNC hack is still considered to be ongoing
2. That the DNC has, currently in its possession, classified material that is part of an ongoing counter-intelligence probe.
3. That despite having classified material on DNC servers that is part of an active counter-intelligence probe, the FBI doesn't have direct access to those servers.

And I guess by implication, all DNC employees with access to those servers (both IT and management) have the necessary security clearances to be in contact with such material, as do any contractors that the DNC may have brought in to help them with security.

Is this accurate?

In any case, we've reached the point where it kind of matters, so I decided to look a little further into the timing of the investigation. The DNC became aware of the intrusion in April 2016, and by May, Crowdstrike had already identified the security issues. If that's the case, a download from July wouldn't be in forensic images at all, assuming they were taken at the beginning of the Crowdstrike investigation in may... unless Crowdstrike didn't actually fix the security issues and allowed continued access (I sort of doubt it if the data was actually classified, as you claim).

So while the forensic images may not have this information, the DNC periodic backups surely should, and since this all occurred AFTER the intrusion was found and FIXED, none of it should be relevant to any ongoing counterintelligence investigation. In this case, the FBI may not have this information either, but the DNC would still have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #64)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 08:10 PM

67. Sure. There is still an investigation.

I doubt it is still active. But there is a hacker trial going on now so the FBI would have to stay current.

The DNC has since gotten rid of all the infected computers. They didn't do it right away because the FBI didn't want to tip off the hackers. The FBI no longer has access to them.

I don't think the data was classified until it became part of the investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #67)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 10:29 PM

75. This is what you're referring to, right?

"In the six weeks after CrowdStrike’s arrival, in total secrecy, the computer system at the D.N.C. was replaced. For a weekend, email and phones were shut off; employees were told it was a system upgrade. All laptops were turned in and the hard drives wiped clean, with the uninfected information on them imaged to new drives."

So, on the one hand, you're right that they didn't lock out the hackers right away and did swap out (or wipe) their systems (not with a cloth, either). On the other hand, the supposed download upload took place in July. CrowdStrike started in May. By the time the download would have occurred (more than 6 weeks later), the Russians would have already been locked out, and NONE of the information on the DNC servers after that would be part of the investigation as the Russians would no longer have had access.

So, the syslog information from the date of the download wouldn't be classified as part of the investigation. Thanks for providing this link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 04:46 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, 03:39 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, 07:30 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, 09:18 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, 10:44 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, 12:27 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 Nostrings (Reply #40)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 08:36 PM

48. Why is everybody who doesn't confirm your conspiracy theories left wing?

You said that about the FBI and Crowd Strike now and who knows who else. I've said before conspiracy theories always grow because the theorists just say any doubters on in on it. Amazing!

You called what I had to say was brainless. That's just an insult. I want to hear your theory. Do you think that people provide false evidence to the FBI all the time and that tons of people are in jail and few are not? Go ahead. Show me how smart you are.

You want evidence that the DNC was hacked? I posted some in reply #44, and there is lots more, but I doubt it would influence you. Its not just me and some left wingers saying it. It the finding of the US government and private companies. I know the DNC was hacked because there is overwhelming evidence of it. Where is your evidence that they weren't hacked?

As posted elsewhere in this thread there are lots of reasons why the DNC would deny the FBI access to their server. Its not even certain that they did.

The FBI watched the hack and did send somebody to contact the DNC but the only contact was with a low level IT guy who thought he was being pranked. The FBI didn't notify most Fancy Bear victims.

Intel Committee blasts FBI for not notifying Russian hacking victim

https://www.cyberscoop.com/house-intel-blasts-fbi-for-inadequate-notification-2016-russian-hacking/

I've given you tons of logic. You haven't reciprocated.

I'm never going to let you out of the corner you put yourself it with your claim that the DNC didn't provide mirror images. I said they did and you called that "incorrect." Now you are trying to get out of the corner by claiming all you were doing was doubting my ability to know that. You brag all the time that your language is very precise. You didn't say doubt. You said "incorrect." If you had just doubted my ability to know I could have explained to you how I know.

You also said the DNC was in hip deep. You accuse me of misquoting you because I didn't include your statement that because of that the DNC shouldn't be trusted. That doesn't change what you said. In hip deep means the DNC was doing something wrong and like always you need no evidence at all to believe what you want to believe.

Taunting is childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #48)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 11:06 PM

52. You're the one accepting conclusions without proof, remember?

"You said that about the FBI and Crowd Strike now and who knows who else. I've said before conspiracy theories always grow because the theorists just say any doubters on in on it. Amazing! "

You're still trying to make this about me. We're talking about a conclusion which you accepted without proof and expect everyone else to as well, remember?

"You called what I had to say was brainless. That's just an insult."

No trevor. The argument you put forth, drawing conclusions from people in jail was dumb.

Brainless dumb.

I shouldn't have to tell you that. You should know that on your own, and thus be prevented from looking the way one inevitably looks when uttering such utterances.


"I want to hear your theory."

No, you really don't. My theory is that you've accepted as an established fact, that which is NOT an established fact, and you expect the rest of us to accept it as you do, and if we don't you start using words like "kook" and "conspiracy theory" to try to ink up the waters and attempt to make it about your opponent instead.

You continue to avoid that theory and make it about me at all costs, with the desperation of a drowning man, and thats something I know trevor - I was a lifeguard.


"Do you think that people provide false evidence to the FBI all the time and that tons of people are in jail and few are not? Go ahead. Show me how smart you are."

And now you're doubling down on that monumentally dumb argument, as if I'd follow it and you down your rabbit hole.

*yawn*


"You want evidence that the DNC was hacked? I posted some in reply #44, and there is lots more, but I doubt it would influence you."

You posted what you CLAIM is evidence. That doesn't magically MAKE IT evidence.


"Its not just me and some left wingers saying it. It the finding of the US government and private companies."

Its the finding of some parts of the government trevor, namely hand picked analysts, which just happened to be politicized by the previous administration. You approve of what they say and you give them all the weight of the federal government because they say something beneficial for your side and against the other side...yet you do nothing of the sort when it comes to the President, AG Barr, or anyone not on your side. As feinstein would say, it lives loudly within you...your problem is that you don't understand just how loudly or transparently...though you would if you were capable of steping outside your bubble...you'd be horrified, in point of fact.


"I know the DNC was hacked because there is overwhelming evidence of it."

Yet you continue to provide none and instead run your gob.


"As posted elsewhere in this thread there are lots of reasons why the DNC would deny the FBI access to their server."

In a legitimate criminal investigation, trevor, the dnc doesn't get to decide, the fbi decides. Thats one huge red flag here.

"The FBI watched the hack and did send somebody to contact the DNC but the only contact was with a low level IT guy who thought he was being pranked. The FBI didn't notify most Fancy Bear victims."

Your link does not support the claim that the fbi watched the hack as it happened.


"I've given you tons of logic. You haven't reciprocated."

The problem trevor, is that what you think passes for logic, in all actuality does not.


"I'm never going to let you out of the corner you put yourself it with your claim that the DNC didn't provide mirror images."

Another straw man.

My claim is that the the DNC CLAIMS to have provided mirror images as opposed to actually provided genuine mirror images.

You can't argue against that claim, because its air fucking tight, so you butcher my original argument and then claim I authored it post butchering.

Told you once already, boy, that may pass for sophisticated in your circles, but it is sophomoric sophistry in mine...to be mocked and ridiculed and laughed at.


"I said they did and you called that "incorrect."

That is correct.



"Now you are trying to get out of the corner by claiming all you were doing was doubting my ability to know that. "

That was the POINT of saying that you were incorrect trevor.


"You brag all the time that your language is very precise."

Its not a brag trevor. Its a statement of fact.


"You didn't say doubt. You said "incorrect.""

That is correct.


"If you had just doubted my ability to know I could have explained to you how I know."

But you DO NOT KNOW, because you CAN NOT KNOW, because EVEN THE FBI DOES NOT KNOW. They PRESUME, just as you PRESUME.



There is an example of ice cold logic for you trevor. Study it. Learn from it.


"You also said the DNC was in hip deep. You accuse me of misquoting you because I didn't include your statement that because of that the DNC shouldn't be trusted."

You're misquoting me again. I said "The dnc is hip deep involved in this crap, and their word is simply not reliable."

It wasn't OK the first time, what makes you think its ok the second or third time?

"That doesn't change what you said."

Thats true, but what I said means what *I* mean by it, not whatever you decide you can twist it to mean.


"In hip deep means the DNC was doing something wrong and like always you need no evidence at all to believe what you want to believe."


My exact words were "hip deep in this crap". "This crap" being everything 'muh russia'. The DNC has a vested interest in a specific perceived outcome, and not even you can deny that. Their word is simply not reliable, for that reason alone, and it isn't the only one.

"Taunting is childish."

So is misrepresenting with the skill of a grade schooler, and erecting crude strawmen that even DUers could tackle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #52)

Mon Aug 19, 2019, 08:44 PM

54. You make it about me.

You always have. And when you talk about other things you says smart assed stuff like: "Told you once already, boy, that may pass for sophisticated in your circles, but it is sophomoric sophistry in mine...to be mocked and ridiculed and laughed at." Don't try to lay all the disharmony on me. I'd love this to be just about issues and not each other.

There is tons of proof out there that Russians hacked the DNC. Did you look at the other stuff I posted? You said the link I just gave you doesn't support the claim that the FBI didn't watch the hack as it happened. How do you explain this then?

"Although the FBI maintained an on going dialogue with the related to the the Russian intrusions, engagement remained at the-working level. These interactions continued for months, despite no signs of effective mediation to the problem,” the report says.

The committee faults the DNC for not handling the attacks “with the level of seriousness it deserved”, but says that the onus was on the FBI to elevate its engagement with the DNC to a more senior level.

“he FBI should update its internal processes to make it clear that if a victim is neither willing nor able to take remedial measures in the event of a significant national security cyber event, FBI leadership should contact the I victim and engage at the leadership level,” the report says."

This link also answered other questions you asked. Let me guess now. The GOP lied 2018 House Intelligence Committee was left leaning and in on it too. Right?

Here are some more links you ought to read:

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dncserver-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server




Hunting the DNC hackers: how Crowdstrike found proof Russia hacked the Democrats

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/dnc-hack-proof-russia-democrats

There is plenty of other proof out there but none of it will do any good because you absolutely refuse to accept facts.

Now, how do I know Crowd Strike gave the FBI a true copy? The DNC servers had malware that the hackers used still on them. There was a trail of the hack. Crowd Strike would have had to have fabricated all that evidence. If they did they would have to make a mistake somewhere. Those images were reviewed and authenticated by the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies and two other private security companies. The FBI does know. They are sure. You have no logic on this, ice cold or otherwise. Refusing to believe facts does not make the facts go away. Presume means they believed without evidence. Its ridiculous to say the "presumed."

Since there is no doubt there was a Russian hack there was no reason for the DNC to fabricate. Fabricating would have been an enormous risk to take and it would have been taken for nothing.

What you says is only what I claimed to be evidence is in fact evidence. It was enough for the FBI and U.S. intelligence. Donald Trump himself pressured his CIA director to come to a different conclusion. A review was carried out and the Trump CIA concurred with the original findings.

You still haven't come up with any evidence that sending forgeries to the FBI is a common occurrence.

Your language isn't as precise as you pretend it is.

I haven't misrepresented you or created straw men. You have to keep adding to what you said to try and make it right. As always, you fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #54)

Mon Aug 19, 2019, 08:56 PM

56. You have no clue what a fact is.

Your shtick is lame and transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #54)

Mon Aug 19, 2019, 09:27 PM

58. Because you say things which are ridiculous. Thats your fault, not someone elses.

" And when you talk about other things you says smart assed stuff like: "Told you once already, boy, that may pass for sophisticated in your circles, but it is sophomoric sophistry in mine...to be mocked and ridiculed and laughed at.""

Thats not smart assed trevor, thats dead on serious. You're engaging in debate tactics such as misrepresentation, and the straw man, which are quite dishonest debate tactics.

You don't get to point the finger at me and claim disharmony for pointing them out. No one is responsible for them but you.


"There is tons of proof out there that Russians hacked the DNC."

Says you. The problem is, trevor, you don't understand what the things you read actually mean. in fact, you read them in whatever way favors what you WANT them to mean. I'll show you an example shortly.


"Did you look at the other stuff I posted?"

Yes, they don't prove what you claim they prove.


"You said the link I just gave you doesn't support the claim that the FBI didn't watch the hack as it happened. How do you explain this then?

"Although the FBI maintained an on going dialogue with the related to the the Russian intrusions, engagement remained at the-working level. These interactions continued for months, despite no signs of effective mediation to the problem,” the report says. "


This is where it becomes necessary to explain to you trevor, what everyone else who reads that paragraph gets automatically: Just because someone is continually involved AFTER THE FACT, does not mean they were there when the crime was being committed. You claim they watched it in real time. That set of sentences does not establish this as a fact.

You're deriving facts and details from that very vague set of sentences, which are simply not in evidence. A perfect example of what I was talking about above.


"This link also answered other questions you asked. Let me guess now. The GOP lied 2018 House Intelligence Committee was left leaning and in on it too. Right? "

What the fuck are you babbling about now?


Dailybeast is not a legitimate source. Crowdstrike is not trustworthy, without verification, which has not been done.


"There is plenty of other proof out there but none of it will do any good because you absolutely refuse to accept facts."

You haven't the wherewithall to determine which facts are actually facts and which aren't, nor the wherewithal to determine, of the actual facts, which are relevant, and which are trivial.

You've demonstrated that repeatedly, and not just to me.


"Now, how do I know Crowd Strike gave the FBI a true copy?"


You do NOT know.

"The DNC servers had malware that the hackers used still on them."

Irrelevant unless they had both to compare and actually compared them - which they did not.



"There was a trail of the hack."

Someone says. Without comparing the original to the image, all you have is "someone says", trevor, and there is NO escaping that for you.


"Those images were reviewed and authenticated by the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies and two other private security companies."

This is a lie as it relates to the government. No verification was ever done, because the original was never examined by them.

A point blank lie, trevor.

Two private security companies is HEARSAY.


"The FBI does know."

Incorrect. Unless they have actually compared tthe originals to the image, they do not know. They PRESUME.

There is only ONE way to KNOW: Compare the images to the originals. We know (by the true definition of the word) that wasn't done, so we therefore know (by the true definition of the word) that the word "know" can not apply by its true definition.


"You have no logic on this, ice cold or otherwise."

I juist gave you airtight logic trevor. If you can't understand it, thats on you.


"Refusing to believe facts does not make the facts go away."


No facts have been established. You're still here claiming as fact, a thing you can not actually know, because the FBI can not know.

More logic right there for you to fail to understand.


"Presume means they believed without evidence. Its ridiculous to say the "presumed." "


Uh, trevor, unless they examined the originals, they have NO evidence that the images are unaltered images OF the originals.

THAT is a fact. That isn't suspicion or speculation or guessing.


"Since there is no doubt there was a Russian hack there was no reason for the DNC to fabricate."

Just because you aren't able to think of any doesn't mean there aren't any. The dnc has a vested interest in a perceived public perception of a russian hack, and as such are not trustworthy without verification - which did not happen.

"What you says is only what I claimed to be evidence is in fact evidence."

Thats your claim, anyway.


"It was enough for the FBI and U.S. intelligence."

Both politicized under the previous admin, and those conclusions were political, not objective.



"Donald Trump himself pressured his CIA director to come to a different conclusion."

The government is infested with leftist resistance members trying to run interference against this President. What the President does to deal with it is no evidence of anything exccept that its a problem and needs resolution.


"A review was carried out and the Trump CIA concurred with the original findings."

And NSA didn't.

"You still haven't come up with any evidence that sending forgeries to the FBI is a common occurrence."

Thats because whether it is or isn't is entirely irrelevant. Theres another thing I shouldn't have to tell you, but do.



"Your language isn't as precise as you pretend it is."

It is as precise as I wish it to be. It is MINE after all.


"I haven't misrepresented you or created straw men."

Yes you have. Creating an argument I didn't put forward, then saying I created it, and then arguing against it, is the text book definition of a straw man.

YOU DID THAT.


"You have to keep adding to what you said to try and make it right."

It isn't "adding to it" when I add back the half of the sentence you removed to return it to the way it was when I authored it.


"As always, you fail."

As always, you get your ass kicked and don't know any better.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #58)

Tue Aug 20, 2019, 09:24 PM

63. Its not what I'm saying

I think you don't understand basic logic.

For it to have been a problem that the FBI didn't give notice about the hacks the FBI had to have known about the hacks. They knew before the victims did. They knew before the hacks were over. They watched it.

I'm not sure you can do it but try some logic this time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #63)

Tue Aug 20, 2019, 09:35 PM

65. What you're not saying, is anything about the unverified images and your lies about them.

"For it to have been a problem that the FBI didn't give notice about the hacks the FBI had to have known about the hacks."

That only referrs to how "after the fact" they were informed, it does not refer to how "after the fact" the fbi got involved.

What you're lacking to prove this point, is dates and timestamps and actual PROOF...


Now, back to your explanation how the FBI could know that the images were identical to the originals, without examing the originals for comparison?

Explain it trevor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #65)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 07:58 PM

66. I'm down to trying to take this slowly with you.

First you have to recognize that there was a Russian hack of the DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #66)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 08:54 PM

70. No. First you have to explain...

How the FBI could know that the images were identical to the originals, without examing the originals for comparison?

Explain it trevor.

We'll move on when you can explain that, and not until.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #70)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 09:20 PM

71. I'm explaining it. We have to break down into steps for you.

Can you accept as fact that the Russians hacked the DNC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #71)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 09:30 PM

72. No you aren't. You're deflecting.

Whether I accept that the DNC was hacked by the russians or not, is irrelevant to the method you'll be needing to describe, of how to compare images in your hand and see that it matches an original which you've never had in your possession.

Alleged commonalities without official comparison are just that, alleged without official comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #72)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 09:45 PM

73. You are looking at this through a straw

The FBI had other ways to know if the image was genuine. I'm not deflecting. I'm being very patient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #73)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 10:53 PM

76. What other way is there than comparison to the original, trevor?

To KNOW, not to hear from someone else and PRESUME.

Please, share this methodology.


"I'm not deflecting. I'm being very patient."

You've already somewhat demonstrated, trevor, that whatever your crackpot theory is, it is based on the BELIEF that the russians hacked the DNC, otherwise my belief of it wouldn't be what you call a "step".







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:08 PM

77. The methodology is logic and evidence.

My "crackpot theory" is the finding of the U.S. government.

Do you believe Russians hacked the DNC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #77)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:18 PM

78. Your methodology is presumption, and your conclusions based on presumption, and we both know it.

"My "crackpot theory" is the finding of the U.S. government."

You're trying to change the subject. When I said "crackpot theory", I was referring specifically to your hairbrained conclusion that you can declare that a known is identical to an unknown without any examination of the unknown what so ever, by government.


"Do you believe Russians hacked the DNC?"

Irrelevant to how you can declare that a known is identical to an unknown without any examination of the unknown what so ever, by government.

Back to the original claim made by you, that the DNC turned over mirror images.

You have yet to prove that claim.

We know that the DNC CLAIMS to have turned over images, but you have no proof beyond that, and in spite of all your posturing, all your words, you refuse to pony up the proof.

You have put forth no proof in support of your position.

How many more posts will you post where I can just copy and paste that and be right, trevor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #78)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:37 PM

81. You would be right in zero posts.

There is a copy of the U.S. Constitution on the web. How does anybody know its really a copy without printing it and finding the original and comparing them?

When I was in college, a professor told us when your chance of being wrong is one in 400,000 then go ahead with what you believe is right and just accept that you'll be wrong one in 400,000 times. What do you think are the odds that the Findlaw.com Constitution isn't a genuine copy (meaning the words are identical)? As far as I know nobody has compared it to the original.

With logic we can determine that Findlaw.com is used by many law professors and lawyers and if there was an error it would have been pointed out by now. That's how normal people recognize reality. Only an obsessed person who can't allow himself to believe something demands the level of certainty that you do.

Visual comparison isn't the only way to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #81)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:58 PM

85. You have put forth no proof in support of your position. Again.

"There is a copy of the U.S. Constitution on the web. How does anybody know its really a copy without printing it and finding the original and comparing them?"

THAT is among the dumbest arguments you have ever concocted.

For starters:

We know anything on the web of the constitution is by definition, a copy, since the original wasn't digital.

Even if we set that aside, the original constitution EXISTS and we CAN examine it and compare the content of any copy to the original, by going to the National Archives Museum.


"When I was in college, a professor told us when your chance of being wrong is one in 400,000 then go ahead with what you believe is right and just accept that you'll be wrong one in 400,000 times. What do you think are the odds that the Findlaw.com Constitution isn't a genuine copy (meaning the words are identical)? As far as I know nobody has compared it to the original."

Diversion.


"Only an obsessed person who can't allow himself to believe something demands the level of certainty that you do."

And there you go, admitting it inadvertently - BELIEF. You just admitted that you allow yourself to believe, and you're trying to make the playing field one of degrees with "levels of certainty", instead of either absolute proof or no absolute proof.

Furthermore, when it comes time to settle accounts for spygate, you will demand ABSOLUTE PROOF, and we know that you will.

You can't know, nor can you PROVE that you know, without confirmation.


"Visual comparison isn't the only way to know."

No comparison means no way to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #85)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 06:27 PM

86. Turns out I made a great argument

You don't realize it but you admitted I'm right. You wrote, "Even if we set that aside, the original constitution EXISTS and we CAN examine it and compare the content of any copy to the original, by going to the National Archives Museum." That's logic! Good for you. And with that logic you were able to decide that the Findlaw copy is real without a physical comparison. See how this can work?

You should learn from what my professor said and make it part of your habits.

There almost never is absolute proof.

I'll look at the evidence of spygate and decide. I think you'll believe what you want no matter what they find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #86)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 06:44 PM

88. You have put forth no proof in support of your position. Again.

"And with that logic you were able to decide that the Findlaw copy is real without a physical comparison."

Incorrect. With logic I was able to determine that a method of comparison was available, unlike with the server images and the originals. I never looked at whether the comparisons matched or not because that was never the point of the exercise.

Presume to lecture me about logic some more, trevor.

You still have yet to explain how to compare an image to an original to see that it is in fact a duplicate, without the original to compare to.


"There almost never is absolute proof. "

You'll question it even where there is, if it indicates something contrary to your politics.


"I'll look at the evidence of spygate and decide. I think you'll believe what you want no matter what they find. "


You're projecting. YOU are the one that accused the President of telling Flynn to lie without any evidence what so ever, remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #88)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 07:01 PM

89. I was closer about Flynn than you think

You on the other hand are almost always wrong.

I answered your questions before and the answers didn't sink in, probably because they encountered cement. I'm trying to break it down into simple things for you but you keep resisting. You are still missing the point on the Findlaw analogy.

You need lectures on logic. Very basic ones to start.

I'm not the one who decides based on bias. I was able to accept Mueller's results even though they weren't what I hoped for. You insanely reject the results of the Hillary probe because they weren't what you wanted to believe.

By the way, Trump probably did tell Flynn to lie to the Washington Post about his phone call. Its quite possible Flynn still believed he was acting under those same instructions when the FBI came. See the Mueller report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #89)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 07:48 PM

91. You should get into comedy, great stuff.

"I'm not the one who decides based on bias."

Fucking priceless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #89)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 08:14 PM

92. You have put forth no proof in support of your position. Again.

"You on the other hand are almost always wrong. "

Says the poster who is almost always wrong.


"I answered your questions before and the answers didn't sink in, probably because they encountered cement."

No, you haven't answered THE question.

How do you compare an image to an original when you don't have an original trevor?

Answer the fucking question and quit your dodging and stalling.


"I was able to accept Mueller's results even though they weren't what I hoped for."

You ignore the fact that the mueller team was stocked to the gills with partisans.


"You insanely reject the results of the Hillary probe because they weren't what you wanted to believe. "

You also ignore that the hillary probe team in the fbi was stocked to the gills with partisans, a number of whom also ended up on the mueller team.


"By the way, Trump probably did tell Flynn to lie to the Washington Post about his phone call."


By the way, you don't know what you're talking about.



"I'm trying to break it down into simple things for you but you keep resisting."

You haven't tried to explain anything trevor. You've sat here playing games trying to get me to accept a conclusion, which no reasonable answer to THE question is dependent on.


"You are still missing the point on the Findlaw analogy."

*I* am missing the point?

NO trevor. There was NO point to miss. The findlaw example contains a facsimile and an original to compare it against. Where the DNC images are concerned, no such similar situation exists, as the original has not been compared with the images, and IS NOT AVAILABLE TO COMPARE.

What part of those two scenaries being apples and oranges is unclear to you trevor?


"You need lectures on logic. Very basic ones to start. "

I'm beginning to think someone taught you deliberately wrong, as a joke.


"I'm not the one who decides based on bias."

Bullshit trevor. Your entire claim that Trump told flynn to lie was based on bias and nothing more.

Jesus, you act as if your memory is the standard that everyone elses functions by.


"Its quite possible Flynn still believed he was acting under those same instructions when the FBI came."


Its equally possible that you're a russian bot.



"See the Mueller report."

You mean the mueller report authored by andrew weissmann, which misrepresents and mischaracterizes and hides inconvenient information? That mueller report?

Good grief trevor, its almost like you didn't watch the same hearings we did...was there a sporting event on?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #92)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 09:08 PM

93. Back to something more basic

There's nothing to stop you from making all this about stupid things but don't expect me to ever buy into it. You don't get to decide what the question is.

Of course, like everything else that you don't want to believe, the Mueller report was a leftist plot.

Start on page 29 part II. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/

My idea that Trump told Flynn to lie to the FBI was based on evidence and reasoning.

Try hitting your head harder. You are still missing the point.

You said it is impossible to know if something is a true copy without comparing it to the original. Then you went on to say something was a true copy without comparing to the original. You proved yourself wrong. That is the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #93)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 10:03 PM

94. You have put forth no proof in support of your position. Again.

"There's nothing to stop you from making all this about stupid things but don't expect me to ever buy into it."


You're the one claiming that the DNC gave the FBI genuine images trevor, and can't back that claim up.


"You don't get to decide what the question is."

Circumstances and reality decide what the question is trevor.

How can you compare an image to an original you've never examined?

Thats a simple question trevor, why can't you answer it?



"Of course, like everything else that you don't want to believe, the Mueller report was a leftist plot."

Do you deny that the mueller team was comprised mainly of left leaning partisans?

Do you deny that many of those same partisans were involved in the clinton email "matter"?



"My idea that Trump told Flynn to lie to the FBI was based on evidence and reasoning."

No it wasn't. You made that claim over on DU before there was any evidence to reason over. I know, I looked.


"Try hitting your head harder. You are still missing the point."

Try having a valid point for a change.


"You said it is impossible to know if something is a true copy without comparing it to the original."

Incorrect. The only one to use the phrase "true copy" was you, and the only time that phrase appears in my posts is quoting you.



"Then you went on to say something was a true copy without comparing to the original."

This is where it gets tempting to call you precise, accurate demeaning names trevor. YOU ARE LYING. I did no such thing. Reread this quote:

"With logic I was able to determine that a method of comparison was available, unlike with the server images and the originals. I never looked at whether the comparisons matched or not because that was never the point of the exercise."

What part of "I never looked at whether the comparisons matched or not..." equals saying something is a "true copy" (words I *never* used) without comparing it to an original?


"You proved yourself wrong."

You proved your reading comprehension is as deficient as your debate skill.



"That is the point."

Like I said, you don't have a point. You're way, way out of your depth and you're flailing like a drowning person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #94)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 10:05 PM

95. You don't make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #95)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 10:13 PM

96. You have put forth no proof in support of your position. Again.

"You don't make sense."

See that line of posters lining up to tell me how what I'm saying makes no sense?

Me neither. If I'm not making sense, it is only to you.



Support your position trevor.

You assert that the DNC gave the FBI genuine unaltered images.

Support your position and prove it, or admit that the most you can claim and prove is that the DNC CLAIMS to have given legit images to the FBI.

This isn't hard. I know you have your pride, but I feel certain you can swallow it if you try really hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #96)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 07:36 PM

97. Weren't you crushed when the walls closed in?

You don't get to make the rules. What on Earth makes you think you can?

I can explain it quite well but not a word would penetrate. I just get responses that make no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #97)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 07:50 PM

98. I was so crushed!

"You don't get to make the rules."

I never claimed to make the rules. They are what they are. Reality dictates it so.


"What on Earth makes you think you can? "

What on earth makes you think you can lead a racist march?


"I can explain it quite well but not a word would penetrate."

Sure you can trev.


"I just get responses that make no sense."

Again, they make perfect sense, just not to you...In fact, that may be the entire nature of your troubles.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #98)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 08:22 PM

99. Reality goes against you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #99)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 11:17 PM

100. Nope.

I'll be here to serve you a biiiig plate of crow trevor, reality is about to take a giant shit on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #100)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 11:25 PM

102. When?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #102)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 11:56 PM

103. Soon enough.

I'm patient.

Say, did you see your vaunted MSM hired lying leaking recommended for prosecution andy mccabe today, after spending yesterday bitching about fox hiring sarah sanders and sean spicer being on dancing with the stars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #103)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:16 AM

104. Balance?

Very vague prediction. Doesn't look like you have much faith in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #104)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:22 AM

105. What balance?

You still have not provided proof in support of your position trevor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #105)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:38 AM

106. You refuse to look at it, then you go on claiming it doesn't exist.

Don't blame me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #106)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:43 AM

107. I have not. You refuse to post it.

Proof is independent of opinions trevor.

Post some or admit you have none.

And you never did answer trevor.

What balance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #107)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 09:03 AM

108. Scroll back

No matter what evidence there is you can still call it opinion, and you will. Why do you suppose the FBI and U.S. intelligence believe they got an accurate copy?

Looks like they had some RWs that people objected to and then somebody RWs object to.That's balance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #108)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 09:49 AM

109. Thats an excuse. You're afraid of exposing your crackpot theories to scrutiny.

Perhaps it's a confirmation of what everyone paying attention already knew: You're trying to pass off opinion as substantiated fact. Again.


"Balance" is a false objective.

What ever the truth is, the truth is, no matter whether there is a majority that believe it or a majority that disbelieve it.

It does not depend on balance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #109)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 12:49 PM

112. I give opinions

but I back them up.

Who is to say what the truth is? We each decide for ourselves. We are better able to decide when we get both sides.

I have already given some of my opinion. How about you back up the idea that it wasn't copy but a forgery? Let's see what you got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #112)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 01:33 PM

113. I never claimed it was a forgery trevor.

I simply claimed that YOU were making claims which you can't back up, and I was right on the money.

As usual.


"Who is to say what the truth is?"

The person that compares the image to the original. You aren't that person, are you?

No, you aren't.


"We each decide for ourselves."

Incorrect, trevor. No one decides what the truth is. The truth IS, regardless of who believes it or not. What YOU decide, is whether to believe it or not.

Its as simple as that.


"We are better able to decide when we get both sides."

When it comes to truisms, the other side is lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #113)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 02:39 PM

114. You didn't claim it was a forgery

But you keep throwing out that possibility. Don't try denying it.

We live in a free republic. Nobody owns the truth. While I agree there might only be one truth nobody owns saying what it is. And frequently the truth isn't simple.

You were wrong on the money.

Only a closed minded fool never considers the other side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #114)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 03:04 PM

115. "But you keep throwing out that possibility. Don't try denying it."

Thats the thing, trevor.

It isn't ME that throws out that possibility. I didn't invent it. I didn't create it. It EXISTS.

You speak as if it doesn't, and you're just plain wrong.

You're simply mad because I rub your nose in it.


"We live in a free republic."

Presumably.


"Nobody owns the truth."

You might direct that at someone who says otherwise.


"While I agree there might only be one truth nobody owns saying what it is."

Sure, anyone can say what it is. Only some of us can be correct though, and only those of us who are can lay claim to it.


"And frequently the truth isn't simple."

Equally as frequently, many parties have a vested interest in making sure it isn't simple.


"You were wrong on the money. "

Nope. I was right. I'm still right.


"Only a closed minded fool never considers the other side."

One needs no input from the other side when adding two plus two trevor, particularly, when the answer from the other side, to that equation, is "RACIST!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #115)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 05:36 PM

116. Maybe you didn't invent the possibility

But it is so remote no rational person would waste time with it. You are the one pushing it here. I don't know of anybody significant who is. Remember what the professor said. Ignore possibilities that are that remote.

Your responses indicate you believe you have a monopoly on the truth. We aren't deciding what 2+2 is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #116)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 06:19 PM

117. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

"But it is so remote no rational person would waste time with it."

There are no odds, there is no remote. The images either are or are not duplicates of the original.

"You are the one pushing it here."

Incorrect. When you state that the dnc provided images that were authentic, YOU are drawing a conclusion based on no evidence what so ever.

When I say that the DNC CLAIMS to have provided authentic images, I am factually correct in every way.

Of those two statements, only one of them pushes an unconfirmed conclusion as it it were fact, and that is your statement trevor, not mine.


" Remember what the professor said. Ignore possibilities that are that remote."

I hope your professor wasn't in Atlanta watching golf today.


"Your responses indicate you believe you have a monopoly on the truth."

Incorrect. If you read what I posted, and thats what you took from it, you need to read it again, because you got it wrong.

"We aren't deciding what 2+2 is."

We are discussing something equally binary to 2 plus 2 trevor. Hadn't that occured to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #117)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 06:42 PM

118. There was no motive for the DNC to provide forgeries.

The FBI knew about the hack even before the DNC did so there was no reason to lie and no reason the FBI would believe it was a forgery. The information turned over by Crowd Strike was complex, including malware that the Russians installed. It would be difficult to forge and if there was an error, which there probably would have been, a reviewer at the FBI or in intelligence would likely have spotted it. Providing forgeries to the FBI would be a serious criminal offense and its unbelievable that somebody would do it without a strong motive. So the possibilities that they were forgeries are remote at best and more likely zero. Given what I told you, the FBI was able to know that what they got was genuine. You refuse to believe this but its true. You say the truth does not depend on whether you believe it or not so what I'm telling you is true. The images were copies of the original. I said that will plenty of evidence, which I've just shown you.

Lightning strikes happen all the time.

There is such a thing as factually correct but highly misleading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #118)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 07:06 PM

119. That you can think of.

"The FBI knew about the hack even before the DNC did so there was no reason to lie and no reason the FBI would believe it was a forgery. "

Again, just because trevor can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one.


"The information turned over by Crowd Strike was complex, including malware that the Russians installed. "

Says crowdstrike.


"It would be difficult to forge and if there was an error, which there probably would have been, a reviewer at the FBI or in intelligence would likely have spotted it."

Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Further, you aren't a computer guy. You have no idea what so ever, how easy or difficult a thing would be. And to top it off, now you're speculating about what the fbi/intelligence would or wouldn't have spotted.

"Providing forgeries to the FBI would be a serious criminal offense and its unbelievable that somebody would do it without a strong motive."

Again, just because you're unable to come up with a motive doesn't mean there isn't one.


"So the possibilities that they were forgeries are remote at best and more likely zero."

No such thing as remote here trevor. They either are or are not genuine.


"Given what I told you, the FBI was able to know that what they got was genuine."

Nope. They presume, just like you do. Short of direct comparison, presume is the only word that legitimately applies.


"You refuse to believe this but its true."

No, I refuse to believe this because it is FALSE. They can not KNOW without comparison. They can suspect, they can believe, they can have confidence, they have cave faith, but they can not KNOW in the true sense of the word.

"You say the truth does not depend on whether you believe it or not so what I'm telling you is true."

What you're telling me isn't true, regardless of whether you believe it or not trevor.



"The images were copies of the original."

Said without a shred of proof, as if you know, when you can not know, because the fbi itself does not know.

Nothing you can type can change those facts trevor. Nothing.


"I said that will plenty of evidence, which I've just shown you."

Calling your speculations evidence does not make them evidence trevor.


"Lightning strikes happen all the time."

Just ignore them and go watch some golf in Atlanta, your professor said so.


"There is such a thing as factually correct but highly misleading."

Thats nice trevor, but stating that the DNC claims it gave the FBI images isn't misleading. It is factually correct, precise, and draws no unsupported conclusions, unlike your statement.

THAT is the truth trevor, and while I'm sure it hurts, I feel certain that you'll recover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #119)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 07:30 PM

120. You said I couldn't tell you

and I did and you gave a silly response. No reason to keep playing this game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #120)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 07:37 PM

121. You're getting cute and taking liberties with what I've said, as you typically do when cornered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #121)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 07:45 PM

122. You are the one who never got out of your corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #122)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 08:31 PM

123. I was never IN it to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 12:21 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, 07:55 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 Trevor (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 18, 2019, 11:04 AM

42. So Trevor, why do you think the DNC refused to turn over the servers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #42)

Mon Aug 19, 2019, 09:11 PM

57. Trumps Missing DNC Server Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 19, 2019, 09:47 PM

59. Thats an evasion of the question

Why do you think they refused to turn them over?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #59)

Tue Aug 20, 2019, 05:50 PM

62. The article gives several answers to that question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #57)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 08:13 PM

68. Lefty opinions need not apply,

FBI: DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html


Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers


FBI Says the Democratic Party Wouldn't Let Agents See the Hacked Email Servers

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/


The FBI Relied on a Private Firm’s Investigation of the DNC Hack—Which Makes the Agency Harder to Trust

https://slate.com/technology/2017/05/the-fbi-is-harder-to-trust-on-the-dnc-hack-because-it-relied-on-crowdstrikes-analysis.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #68)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 08:27 PM

69. You are way behind on this one.

Try reading the article at the link first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #69)

Wed Aug 21, 2019, 10:26 PM

74. Your assumption is incorrect., like most of your posts.

Tried it before the reply.

You were never in the running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #74)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:21 PM

79. You linked to a bunch of ground that has already been covered.

You must not have been paying attention then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #79)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:25 PM

80. Sorry, wrong again.

You are pretty good at that, wrong that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #80)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:38 PM

82. I'm great at this.

All you can do is offer insults and B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #82)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:39 PM

83. You get your ass handed to you constantly.

A legend in your own mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #83)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 05:51 PM

84. You usually get ignored by me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #84)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 06:32 PM

87. You are a waste of time.

Your links to lefty opinions stated as fact are predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #83)

Thu Aug 22, 2019, 07:02 PM

90. Some low IQ/EQ coward alerted on you.....................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 09:03 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, 10:28 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 DavesNotHere (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 10:31 AM

110. The FBI asked twice for the server and were denied. I believe a judge is ordering it.

Good news. And why is Kim.com not allowed to testify here before Congress? He can give him all the data and match the upload speeds and prove it was not the Russians.

But kim.com has not been invited to this propaganda party. Russians my azz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThreeSparkles (Reply #110)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 12:25 PM

111. Access to DNC servers won't do them any good anymore as they've all been wiped or swapped

out since the attack. They might possibly have access to the log files at the time of the supposed download. In either case, even crowdstrike's position is that 2 different groups, not working in coordination, hacked the DNC server.

Not only that, but saying Russia "hacked the DNC" isn't even the same thing as saying it was Russia that provided the info to wikileaks.

My guess is that Kim Dotcom has no interest in actually setting foot on US soil, even if he has information to offer. I don't think he trusts the government and I wouldn't blame him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 08:00 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, 09:09 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, 09:34 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, 09:37 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)

Tue Aug 13, 2019, 11:03 PM

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, 10:14 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


Response to Badsamm (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 11:19 PM

101. His name is Seth Rich

And he deserves justice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics