Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Comey fired

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
    So you're arguing that someone sharing information is considered a "contribution" to a campaign? Is that the angle? Even though nothing you've quoted actually even remotely suggests that? Wow, you guys are getting desperate.
    Wooglin,

    Project your views elsewhere.
    Don't put words in my mouth.
    Read what I posted, and react to that.

    I did not say "sharing information is considered a 'contribution' to a campaign" because it isn't supported by the source.

    What I said was, the law recognizes that as long as the individual performing the volunteer personal service is not compensated by anyone, it's OK.

    If you're a lawyer working for the Russians to influence the US presidential campaign, then no.
    It isn't OK to provide information to one side for the purpose of changing the outcome of the election.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
      You do mean Fusion GPS, founded by two former journalists of the Wall Street Journal eight years ago? A commercial research firm that does research in many fields? A firm the DNC hired in 2012 for opposition research on Romney? A firm where Akhmetshin has been linked to, in 2016, and involved in a pro-Russian lobbying campaign against the Magnitsky Act that was signed by Obama. You mean to tell me that this firm has been a DNC operated front all these years that even operated against Obama? I'm impressed although it may not be by what you think.
      zraver may need some ointment for that particular level of burn ...
      Trust me?
      I'm an economist!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
        He may have been GRU, but now he is a DNC operative employed by Fusion GPS... Looks like a Clinton blackhat dirty trick is about to backfire.
        Sure so what? Anna 'Chapman' (née Vasil’yevna Kushchyenko) was working at 'PropertyFinder LLC'. If these sort of people opened Linkedin accounts saying "professional spy" they would not get far.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
          because it took place on June 22, last summer, a full month before Wikileak did its first dump of DNC e-mails and nearly 2 months before US intel informed Obama that the Russian government was probably behind it.
          The claim that Russia is behind the DNC dump is not supported by any forensic examine done by the government but is sourced solely on a claim made by the DNC who refuses to turn over its computers to the FBI to establish if any intrusion was actually made. Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy rate so far and they claim it was a leak not a hack. So do I trust wikileaks ore than a government that saw fit to spy on its own senators, have the AG meet with the husband of a suspect in private, lie about an embassy attack and funnel billions to the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism, yup sure do.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
            1. So far zero evidence Russia had anything to do with anything. Wikileaks maintains it was a leak, not a hack. No evidence has been provided that it was a hack. No US government agency has examined the DNC's computers and Podesta shared his password. The sole claim for a hack comes from a computer company in the employ of the DNC.
            US intelligence agencies take a different view. They are considerably better informed than you and considerably less biased (a low bar in this instance). You can claim that the FBI, CIA & NSA are all wrong or lying if you choose.

            2. Rinat Akhmetshin the former Soviet intelligence officer who was present is a paid DNC operative employed by Fusion GPS a DNC op research firm.
            This right wing talking point has already been dealt with. He's a lobbyist working for the interests of the Russian Government. Just ask Chuck Grassley.

            3. Getting information pro bono is not illegal. If receiving information was illegal, let alone merely attempting to gain information, then the DNC's collusion with the Ukraine would be a crime.

            4. The only federal crime for collusion is for price fixing, its literally a made up offense in the context of political information.

            5. Federal campaign finance laws have never before been read to view pro bono information as a thing of value. They have always been read to view info as a personal service which is legal.
            Thank you for providing a stellar example of what I was talking about - vigorously argue a case that it only partially relevant and ignore the elephant in the room.
            Last edited by Bigfella; 16 Jul 17,, 02:49.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              US intelligence agencies take a different view. They are considerably better informed than you and considerably less biased (a low bar in this instance). You can claim that the FBI, CIA & NSA are all wrong or lying if you choose.
              They have never examined the computers the DNC claims were hacked. The US would love to discredit Wikileaks by claiming it is a Russian front, and the DNC would rather blame outside hackers than inside whistle blowers. As regards the alphabet agencies, they are the same ones who hacked the senate, spied on allies, lied about Benghazi, handed out immunity deals like candy, and various and numerous WTF moments, far too many for me to trust what they say when stacked against a group that has a 100% accuracy rate.



              This right wing talking point has already been dealt with. He's a lobbyist working for the interests of the Russian Government. Just ask Chuck Grassley.
              He is employed by Fusion GPS a DNC op research firm.... He can do more than 1 thing, but the fact he is employed as a DNC operative means something.



              Thank you for providing a stellar example of what I was talking about - vigorously argue a case that it only partially relevant and ignore the elephant in the room.
              There is no elephant, thats what you are missing. This is a dog and pony show not based on substance. No laws broken, no proof of a Russian hack. Nothing but a bunch of sore losers.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                BF... There are those of us who think Donald jr was incredibly stupid to have a meeting like this with, as we know now, 7 other people. It also shows Manafort's ineptness. I can't imagine a campaign manager allowing such a meeting to take place. I guess he figured the family of the boss got a pass.
                Don Jnr seems determined to prove that money and connections beat ability. Without Daddy he would be flipping burgers somewhere.

                On the highlighted bit, that is a very charitable interpretation. It would be just a s reasonable to assert that he saw this as an opportunity

                I understand your fascination by efforts to downplay the meeting's significance, and I hope you'll forgive my fascination with those who overplay it. Take, for example, this from your post:

                The bold part has not been established as fact by anyone. Although Goldstone, Trump Jr's buddy who asked for the meeting, did say in one of his emails that Russia supported Trump, it's a leap to conclude the meeting was part of an attempt by the Russian government to get Trump elected. No one knows that for sure.
                The meeting was presented to Junior as an attempt by the Russian Government to influence the election by helping his father. That is not a 'leap', it is unambiguous and it is the point I was making. Junior, Jared and Trump's campaign manager all knew this when they walked in the door. That is why they were there.

                We also have a claim from one of the people present that a plastic folder containing documents about the DNC was handed over. That looks a lot like an attempt to influence the outcome of the campaign. There also seems to have been a distinct lack of curiosity about just how the Russian government would come by such information.

                A day or two later Daddy Trump gave a speech talking about revealing secret info on Hilary's campaign. I'm prepared to accept that coincidence happens, but that seems like a mighty big one.


                True. But what we know now wasn't known then.
                I was talking about what we know now, though I can see looking at the full post that I might not have made that clear. My point is that the people who are trying to dismiss this as a 'nothingburger' are fully aware of the context in which it happened.

                The more we learn the more this looks like the Trump campaign accepting help from a hostile foreign power. Legal or not, there is no universe in which that is 'nothing'.

                The meeting is revealing in another way. Trump Jr. was anxious to set up this meeting because, of course, he wanted to get his hands on incriminating evidence against HRC. But, it also suggests there was no collusion going on between the campaign and Russia, at least at the time, because if, in fact, people in the campaign were already colluding with Russia, it would have made no sense for Donald Jr. to hold the meeting. He would have been extremely leery of other Russians claiming similar ties to the Kremlin, ties he could have easily checked out with any Russians the campaign was already colluding with. Moreover, if you want to hide collusion you wouldn't have meetings with Russians outside the ones you are already colluding with. So, ironic as it may seem. the fact the meeting was held suggests that the Trump campaign was not colluding with the Russians at the time. I'm not claiming that is the case, but it could be.
                That is a big mountain of assumption JAD. This meeting was set up by people the Trumps knew & trusted. There is no reason to believe Russia would only use one conduit. Another interpretation might be that the reason Manafort and Kushner jumped into this with so few apparent questions is because they had been expecting such an approach based on earlier conversations about collusion with others connected to Putin. That is as just as reasonable an interpretation.

                No question Trump and family have botched their public responses. But, for its part, the media has been overzealous and, at times, inaccurate in its reporting and commentary.
                'Botched' is an interesting way to describe repeatedly lying about the meeting and repeatedly refusing to disclose relevant details. Junior was still covering up in the Hannity interview. That isn't 'botched', its active deception. That isn't 'oops', its highly suspicious, even for someone as obviously stupid as Donny Jr.

                You might find this interview with a former prosecutor interesting. I know it's Fox, but it's straightforward.

                http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/55079...#sp=show-clips
                Good interview. This is going to be long & messy. I still don't see it costing Trump his job, but he is going to get damaged.
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  The claim that Russia is behind the DNC dump is not supported by any forensic examine done by the government but is sourced solely on a claim made by the DNC who refuses to turn over its computers to the FBI to establish if any intrusion was actually made. Wikileaks has a 100% accuracy rate so far and they claim it was a leak not a hack.
                  It's weird. Going back to the very beginning, it was the FBI that first warned the DNC their system had been hacked. Or did they say "might" have been hacked? I am pretty sure they didn't have access to the DNC's servers at the time. So how did they know the system had been hacked? That's the most intriguing question. Evidently they weren't sure if it was a serious problem because they just left a message at the DNC help desk instead of contacting the chairwoman's office. As for the server, DNC said back in January that the FBI never asked it. Apparently, the the FBI later did and were refused. However, later FBI director Comey in effect said it didn't matter:
                  By March 2017, Comey, who was still FBI director at the time, told the House Intelligence Committee that his investigators still had not accessed the servers analyzed by CrowdStrike, but maintained that his investigators believed they had an "appropriate substitute."
                  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...en-access.html

                  The whole topic is way beyond the computer skills of most people.

                  Wikileaks may sincerely believe the emails came via a leak and not a hack. But it's well known among cyber security experts that a really skilled hacking organization can make it appear to be a leak using a cut-out, shunting the emails through a slave computer or some such devious cover.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                    It's weird. Going back to the very beginning, it was the FBI that first warned the DNC their system had been hacked. Or did they say "might" have been hacked? I am pretty sure they didn't have access to the DNC's servers at the time. So how did they know the system had been hacked? That's the most intriguing question. Evidently they weren't sure if it was a serious problem because they just left a message at the DNC help desk instead of contacting the chairwoman's office. As for the server, DNC said back in January that the FBI never asked it. Apparently, the the FBI later did and were refused. However, later FBI director Comey in effect said it didn't matter:
                    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...en-access.html
                    Without a forensic exam there is no way to prove a hack. But you don't need evidence to advance a narrative. Comey has zero credibility as a truth teller.

                    The whole topic is way beyond the computer skills of most people.

                    Wikileaks may sincerely believe the emails came via a leak and not a hack. But it's well known among cyber security experts that a really skilled hacking organization can make it appear to be a leak using a cut-out, shunting the emails through a slave computer or some such devious cover.
                    They put a reward out for a slain DNC worker and all but named him as the leak on Dutch TV. Leaks in the US are a huge problem, Snowden, the NSA zero days hacks being leaked, Manning. Big data dumps have more often been by leaks such as i named vs hacks like the Chinese Hack of the OMB.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                      Don Jnr seems determined to prove that money and connections beat ability. Without Daddy he would be flipping burgers somewhere.
                      Yeah, I think he was trying to impress his dad. But he flipped a nothingburger. :) I can't fathom why he lied when it's painfully obvious that he wouldn't get away with it.

                      The meeting was presented to Junior as an attempt by the Russian Government to influence the election by helping his father. That is not a 'leap', it is unambiguous and it is the point I was making. Junior, Jared and Trump's campaign manager all knew this when they walked in the door. That is why they were there.
                      I understand, but it's Goldstone making that assertion in his email pitch to Don Jr. The leap is accepting the assertion as fact. It's certainly not proof that Russia was trying to help hius dad. In fact, until the CIA tells us how it concluded Russia did the DNC hack to help Trump, the question is open. We know the CIA deals in probabilities, unlike the FBI, which deals in hard evidence.

                      We also have a claim from one of the people present that a plastic folder containing documents about the DNC was handed over. That looks a lot like an attempt to influence the outcome of the campaign. There also seems to have been a distinct lack of curiosity about just how the Russian government would come by such information.
                      The information on that seems somewhat murky. Some reports say it was given to Trump Jr.; some say that it was left behind. One source says it contained information about illicit contributions to the DNC. If it was the latter, why wasn't it used in the campaign? It also could have been information about the Magnitsky act.

                      A day or two later Daddy Trump gave a speech talking about revealing secret info on Hilary's campaign. I'm prepared to accept that coincidence happens, but that seems like a mighty big one.
                      If memory serves, he was referring to Clinton's lost e-mails and joked that maybe the Russians could find them. Bad joke, but the media has built it up into proof of something sinister. Does anyone really believe that he would joke about that if he knew the Russians were going to help him by hacking the DNC e-mail server?



                      I was talking about what we know now, though I can see looking at the full post that I might not have made that clear. My point is that the people who are trying to dismiss this as a 'nothingburger' are fully aware of the context in which it happened.
                      Except that the context as we now know it was not known at the time.
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        Without a forensic exam there is no way to prove a hack.
                        CrowdStrike did a forensic exam and the FBI appears to be satisfied with it. Some of these cyber security outfits are pretty good at what they do.

                        Hack or leak? If it was a leak, it was probably a download to a thumb drive. A 64g thumb drive would hold all the emails Wikileaks released and then some, there being on average about 2,850 e-mails in a gig. A leaker wouldn't forward the emails on line because that volume would raise incursion alarms. But a hack requires downloading via the internet, and 60-80k of outgoing docs is going to raise alarms. How else did the FBI know something was amiss with the DNC's servers? A download to a thumb drive they wouldn't detect. So I think the leaker theory is pretty weak.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          Yeah, I think he was trying to impress his dad. But he flipped a nothingburger. :) I can't fathom why he lied when it's painfully obvious that he wouldn't get away with it.
                          When you spend your life coasting on Daddy's considerable money & influence 'consequence' is a decidedly different beast than it is to you & me.


                          I understand, but it's Goldstone making that assertion in his email pitch to Don Jr. The leap is accepting the assertion as fact. It's certainly not proof that Russia was trying to help hius dad. In fact, until the CIA tells us how it concluded Russia did the DNC hack to help Trump, the question is open. We know the CIA deals in probabilities, unlike the FBI, which deals in hard evidence.
                          They went to that meeting on thew assumption that Russia was trying to help Trump. That was the only reason for the meeting. Whether or not that is what actually happened is irrelevant to a point - they believed it was going to happen.


                          If memory serves, he was referring to Clinton's lost e-mails and joked that maybe the Russians could find them. Bad joke, but the media has built it up into proof of something sinister. Does anyone really believe that he would joke about that if he knew the Russians were going to help him by hacking the DNC e-mail server?
                          Joking JAD? Trump is pathologically boastful. Part of that deep seated insecurity of his. If Junior told him he had information on the DNC why would anyone be surprised he would boast?

                          You've also moved the goal posts a bit. No one has yet said that Junior was told what the source of the info was. As far as the Trump's knew it was just a present from the Russian government.

                          Except that the context as we now know it was not known at the time.
                          Which is why, for the second time, I'm talking about that context in terms of the current discussion. People now know what Russia was doing, so it makes it entirely credible & possible (even likely) that what happened was part of that ongoing campaign.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                            CrowdStrike did a forensic exam and the FBI appears to be satisfied with it. Some of these cyber security outfits are pretty good at what they do.

                            Hack or leak? If it was a leak, it was probably a download to a thumb drive. A 64g thumb drive would hold all the emails Wikileaks released and then some, there being on average about 2,850 e-mails in a gig. A leaker wouldn't forward the emails on line because that volume would raise incursion alarms. But a hack requires downloading via the internet, and 60-80k of outgoing docs is going to raise alarms. How else did the FBI know something was amiss with the DNC's servers? A download to a thumb drive they wouldn't detect. So I think the leaker theory is pretty weak.
                            Online chatter by those involved with Wikileaks, if the NSA can listen to Chancellor Merkel's phone conversations.
                            For less data than is on a thumb drive to be detected as a hack given all the video files being uploaded downloaded during a campaign season really strains credibility. Oh the FBI was also OK with the attorney general meeting with the husband of a suspect in private, handing out immunity deals like candy and giving evidence back to suspects to be destroyed...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                              They went to that meeting on thew assumption that Russia was trying to help Trump. That was the only reason for the meeting. Whether or not that is what actually happened is irrelevant to a point - they believed it was going to happen.
                              Yes, he went to the meeting thinking the dirt on Clinton was coming from the Russian government because that's what Goldstone told him in the e-mail. That, however, as any legal expert would tell us, is not evidence that Russia was in fact attempting to help the Trump campaign. Don't get me wrong. I am only focusing on the e-mail's veracity. In the overall scheme of things, Russia may well have attempted to help Trump. Also, Trump jr's readiness to receive dirt on Clinton from what he thought was coming from the Russian government has an air of potential collusion about it. Supposing dirt on Clinton was delivered and supposing Russia was the source, what would have come next? More requests from Trump jr to Russia for information? Russia asking for a favor in return? The hole would just get deeper. I don't think Trump Jr. had any idea of the snake's nest he was walking into, and should be grateful that it was just a lobbyist plumping to get the Magnitsky act overturned.

                              Joking JAD? Trump is pathologically boastful. Part of that deep seated insecurity of his. If Junior told him he had information on the DNC why would anyone be surprised he would boast?
                              Yes, joking. Let's agree to disagree.

                              You've also moved the goal posts a bit. No one has yet said that Junior was told what the source of the info was. As far as the Trump's knew it was just a present from the Russian government.
                              He was told the ostensible source was the government of Russia. It's in the Goldstone e-mail.


                              Which is why, for the second time, I'm talking about that context in terms of the current discussion. People now know what Russia was doing, so it makes it entirely credible & possible (even likely) that what happened was part of that ongoing campaign.
                              It appears you have a point, but not one explainable in terms of context. I'm stuck on the idea that at the time Trump jr took the meeting, there was relatively little PUBLIC awareness of Russia's involvement. So his antenna was not raised as it would be today. But you seem to be saying that Trump jr's meeting was an indication that "collusion" was already underway, and it's only surfacing now. I don't want to set up a strawman here. So I'll let you clarify what you meant.
                              To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                                Wooglin,

                                Project your views elsewhere.
                                Don't put words in my mouth.
                                Read what I posted, and react to that.

                                I did not say "sharing information is considered a 'contribution' to a campaign" because it isn't supported by the source.

                                What I said was, the law recognizes that as long as the individual performing the volunteer personal service is not compensated by anyone, it's OK.

                                If you're a lawyer working for the Russians to influence the US presidential campaign, then no.
                                It isn't OK to provide information to one side for the purpose of changing the outcome of the election.
                                And where exactly in your post did it suggest sharing information is illegal? Because nothing your claiming seems to be supported by the source.
                                Last edited by Wooglin; 17 Jul 17,, 17:23.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X