What if it's found that Trump did help the Russians

[drobeski 3,061]

The GOP HSCI has concluded that Russia did hack the DNC.

tell me, is it common for the fbi to use a third party to do their forensic investigations and just take their word for it ?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

tell me, is it common for the fbi to use a third party to do their forensic investigations and just take their word for it ?

 

Hey if it's good enough for Devin Nunes, it should be good enough for you. And I don't know what the FBI does but it happens in the civilian world all the time.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The GOP HSCI has concluded that Russia did hack the DNC.

 

There are two separate issues regarding hacking and the DNC. One is the DNC being hacked/compromised and the other is the server hacked. I (as well as others) contend the server wasn't hacked but rather emails taken by someone inside. Experts have stated the connection would not allow such a transfer of that sized data to have occurred.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

There are two separate issues regarding hacking and the DNC. One is the DNC being hacked/compromised and the other is the server hacked. I (as well as others) contend the server wasn't hacked but rather emails taken by someone inside. Experts have stated the connection would not allow such a transfer of that sized data to have occurred.

 

I saw Conaway on Tucker last night, he said HSCI GOP had experts vet it thoroughly. They've signed off on that aspect of the IC report.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

I saw Conaway on Tucker last night, he said HSCI GOP had experts vet it thoroughly. They've signed off on that aspect of the IC report.

 

They signed off that the server was hacked (i.e. how the emails were stolen)?

 

Until someone other than a DNC contractor a.k.a. Crowdstrike (who was also in on Operation Trump) gets to forensically inspect that equipment, NFW can it be ascertained to have been hacked.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

They signed off that the server was hacked (i.e. how the emails were stolen)?

 

Until someone other than a DNC contractor a.k.a. Crowdstrike (who was also in on Operation Trump) gets to forensically inspect that equipment, NFW can it be ascertained to have been hacked.

 

Well I guess we'll await the report but according to Conaway it sounds like that's exactly what the GOP HSCI just did.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Well I guess we'll await the report but according to Conaway it sounds like that's exactly what the GOP HSCI just did.

 

The Dems already destroyed that server thus it will never be truly verified. Much like the Joint Analysis Report........doesn't pass the smell test but those that want to believe the Russian Collusion story can't smell worth a sh!t.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

The Dems already destroyed that server thus it will never be truly verified. Much like the Joint Analysis Report........doesn't pass the smell test but those that want to believe the Russian Collusion story can't smell worth a sh!t.

 

That includes Mike Conaway?

[IGotWorms 3,297]

76 pages.

Cant count to 77?

[IGotWorms 3,297]

Washington (CNN)Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone told associates he was in contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2016, according to a new report by The Washington Post, which cites two sources.

 

An unnamed source told the Post that Stone had a phone conversation with Assange in the spring of 2016. Ahead of any public knowledge about Democratic email leaks, Stone told the source he had learned WikiLeaks had obtained emails from the Democratic National Committee and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.

 

During the campaign, Stone said in interviews and speeches that he was in touch with WikiLeaks, and he posted tweets in October 2016 that seemingly predicted the Podesta leaks. The Washington Post report suggests that in addition to these public statements, Stone was even more candid in private conversations about ties to WikiLeaks.

 

Sam Nunberg, the Trump associate who went on a national media spree last week saying he would not comply with special counsel Robert Mueller's demand to hand over his emails pertaining to the campaign (he later backed down), also told the Post that Stone had contact with Assange in 2016.

 

On CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" Monday night, Nunberg said that Stone -- who he has called a mentor -- was "a subject" in the special counsel's investigation.

 

"I think it's pretty obvious that they're asking me about Roger Stone and Julian Assange," Nunberg said, later adding, "At the very least, he is a subject."

 

Yeah, nothing to see here!

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

That includes Mike Conaway?

 

"I believe we're as positive as you can be...I'm comfortable believing that the Russian government was behind the hackers that did all this.

 

 

So another way of saying that..................."without inspecting the equipment, we can't be certain" Bill Binney and other experts assert the data transfer of those emails was local i.e. an inside job. I'm going with NSA experts and NOT with Crowdstrike/DNC who was working with FBI/DOJ to frame this narrative.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

"I believe we're as positive as you can be...I'm comfortable believing that the Russian government was behind the hackers that did all this.

 

 

So another way of saying that..................."without inspecting the equipment, we can't be certain" Bill Binney and other experts assert the data transfer of those emails was local i.e. an inside job. I'm going with NSA experts and NOT with Crowdstrike/DNC who was working with FBI/DOJ to frame this narrative.

 

So, you do agree with Conaway?

[12th Man 884]

Well it's a start. I think the key is trying to understand what words mean in the first place.

You could see Obama and Hillary on tape committing murder and you would debate the meaning of the word murder.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

So, you do agree with Conaway?

 

No. I trust Binney who is an expert on the NSA and cyber issues.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

No. I trust Binney who is an expert on the NSA and cyber issues.

 

So let me see if I have this straight. You include one of the three men who have been leading the GOP HSCI investigation as among those "who can't smell worth a sh!t"?

 

I mean, at least sign off on their findings.

[Sho Nuff 719]

tell me, is it common for the fbi to use a third party to do their forensic investigations and just take their word for it ?

Possibly depending on the scope of the investigation. In addition they had data copies and metadata and dont just take their work for it. Corroronotated by other work and intel of an ally as well (and as Saints noted...even this joke of a committee agrees)

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

I saw Conaway on Tucker last night, he said HSCI GOP had experts vet it thoroughly. They've signed off on that aspect of the IC report.

He (FF)is still citing the forensicator. Thats not an expert and his work has been torn apart by actual experts.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

He (FF)is still citing the forensicator. Thats not an expert and his work has been torn apart by actual experts.

 

Well yeah. I guess I'm just constantly amazed. Here is a guy Conaway whom Fox just yesterday referred to as the man leading the investigation for the HSCI GOP, and Trump followers have been constantly promoting and supporting the GOP HSCI, and so I would think it would be rational to accept what Conaway says and trust the GOP report. But nope.

 

And if Conaway is full of shyte as FF indicates, why should they trust anything else coming out of that report?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

So let me see if I have this straight. You include one of the three men who have been leading the GOP HSCI investigation as among those "who can't smell worth a sh!t"?

 

I mean, at least sign off on their findings.

Reread what he stated. "We're as positive as you can be" So if you (or anyone outside Crowdstrike) aren't permitted to inspect equipment, how positive can you be? I'd love to see someone ask someone making claims "So with our National Security on the line, why wasn't that equipment seized by the FBI for forensic analysis? Why are we relying on someone the DNC hired? Why are we relying on someone with ties to Hillary? Why are we relying on someone who was illegally gaining access to Raw Data 702s?"

 

Why don't you try answering those questions Saints?

He (FF)is still citing the forensicator. Thats not an expert and his work has been torn apart by actual experts.

Bill Binney is who I'm referring to. You fall back on Joint Analysis Report by Comey, Clapper, Brennan; all of whom are proven leakers/liars. Also, you STILL believe Crowdstrike is reputable. See above questions for the layman's concerns with them.

 

[12th Man 884]

 

Reread what he stated. "We're as positive as you can be" So if you (or anyone outside Crowdstrike) aren't permitted to inspect equipment, how positive can you be? I'd love to see someone ask someone making claims "So with our National Security on the line, why wasn't that equipment seized by the FBI for forensic analysis? Why are we relying on someone the DNC hired? Why are we relying on someone with ties to Hillary? Why are we relying on someone who was illegally gaining access to Raw Data 702s?"

 

Why don't you try answering those questions Saints?

 

Bill Binney is who I'm referring to. You fall back on Joint Analysis Report by Comey, Clapper, Brennan; all of whom are proven leakers/liars. Also, you STILL believe Crowdstrike is reputable. See above questions for the layman's concerns with them.

 

I give you credit Filthy. I don't know how you reason with these guys. I honestly think this saints guy is on par with Sho.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

Reread what he stated. "We're as positive as you can be" So if you (or anyone outside Crowdstrike) aren't permitted to inspect equipment, how positive can you be? I'd love to see someone ask someone making claims "So with our National Security on the line, why wasn't that equipment seized by the FBI for forensic analysis? Why are we relying on someone the DNC hired? Why are we relying on someone with ties to Hillary? Why are we relying on someone who was illegally gaining access to Raw Data 702s?"

 

Why don't you try answering those questions Saints?

 

 

I'll answer them in a separate post. But my point, the one you're responding to, is the issue of why you don't agree with Mike Conaway. He didn't couch it in the way that you do, he merely spoke of the difficulty of attribution in any hack investigation, which is true, that's a given. I guess I find it remarkable that you don't even feel you can trust the leader of the GOP investigation on this point, so I'm not sure why you think you or anyone should trust anything else they say.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Well yeah. I guess I'm just constantly amazed. Here is a guy Conaway whom Fox just yesterday referred to as the man leading the investigation for the HSCI GOP, and Trump followers have been constantly promoting and supporting the GOP HSCI, and so I would think it would be rational to accept what Conaway says and trust the GOP report. But nope.

 

And if Conaway is full of shyte as FF indicates, why should they trust anything else coming out of that report?

 

Comprehending English should be a requirement here. "As certain as we can be"..............doesn't sound absolute to me.

 

 

Here's an NSA expert (Bill Binney). I trust the NSA expert that you couldn't transfer those emails over a hacked connection.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I'll answer them in a separate post. But my point, the one you're responding to, is the issue of why you don't agree with Mike Conaway. He didn't couch it in the way that you do, he merely spoke of the difficulty of attribution in any hack investigation, which is true, that's a given. I guess I find it remarkable that you don't even feel you can trust the leader of the GOP investigation on this point, so I'm not sure why you think you or anyone should trust anything else they say.

 

Why is it difficult? Please tell me why the hack investigation is difficult? I'll wait while you make that connection on why it's being MADE difficult.

 

I'm not saying I don't trust him. You're reading into that. I'm saying he isn't sure and I've provided (numerous times) an expert who IS sure it's not possible.

[Sho Nuff 719]

The not inspecting equipment is funny...given FF and others have parroted others saying it wasn't done by the Russians...people who haven't inspected the equipment yet they claim they know.

Believe that 100% but continue to whine about Crowdstrike and attempt to claim they are not a credible source...and continue to ignore what the FBI did (data copies in hand and the metadata) as well as the corroboration by our allies into what happened.

You simply cannot reason with people who cannot accept the simple facts that the Russians did this. It happened. Tillerson even agreed...Pompeo agreed...McMaster agreed...Admiral Rogers (who has been cited by some on this board often) agrees.

You all seem to be the only people still thinking they didn't do it.

When you can't accept what is proven fact at this point...you are hopeless and all in on the Cult Trump. Nothing will convince you.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

Why is it difficult? Please tell me why the hack investigation is difficult? I'll wait while you make that connection on why it's being MADE difficult.

 

I'm not saying I don't trust him. You're reading into that. I'm saying he isn't sure and I've provided (numerous times) an expert who IS sure it's not possible.

I was just responding to your post earlier that you don't agree with him. Maybe you do with this caveat.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

Comprehending English should be a requirement here. "As certain as we can be"..............doesn't sound absolute to me.

 

 

 

Here's an NSA expert (Bill Binney). I trust the NSA expert that you couldn't transfer those emails over a hacked connection.

Ok, Conaway clearly said the committee talked to experts. Why didn't they talk to Binney or accept his conclusions?

[Sho Nuff 719]

whines about the FBI not seeing the equipment (while ignoring what they did see)...believes Binney who didn't inspect the equipment.

 

But his complaint has even been shown to be flawed in multiple places.

Here is just one example.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170814/11490537992/stories-claiming-dnc-hack-was-inside-job-rely-heavily-stupid-conversion-error-no-forensic-expert-would-make.shtml

 

how about another

 

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong

 

Need more?

 

As for Binney...shown to be a Trump guy...a Fox and Breitbart regular...as well as...yes, Infowars later about the Nunes stuff.

Thanks for his service...but he is no more of an expert than others who have concluded otherwise and he also has not seen the actual equipment.

FF and others believe him because he tells them what they want to hear.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

whines about the FBI not seeing the equipment (while ignoring what they did see)...believes Binney who didn't inspect the equipment.

 

But his complaint has even been shown to be flawed in multiple places.

Here is just one example.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170814/11490537992/stories-claiming-dnc-hack-was-inside-job-rely-heavily-stupid-conversion-error-no-forensic-expert-would-make.shtml

 

how about another

 

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong

 

Need more?

 

As for Binney...shown to be a Trump guy...a Fox and Breitbart regular...as well as...yes, Infowars later about the Nunes stuff.

Thanks for his service...but he is no more of an expert than others who have concluded otherwise and he also has not seen the actual equipment.

FF and others believe him because he tells them what they want to hear.

And all that, plus more, is why the GOP HSCI never called him as a witness and didn't adopt his claims. This is really my point: when confronted between accepting conclusions that even people they trust reach which are counter to Trump, versus defending Trump, they reject even the people they trust.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I was just responding to your post earlier that you don't agree with him. Maybe you do with this caveat.

 

No dodging the question. Why is it difficult to determine whether or not the DNC server was hacked? Do you think that might be on purpose?

[Sho Nuff 719]

And all that, plus more, is why the GOP HSCI never called him as a witness and didn't adopt his claims. This is really my point: when confronted between accepting conclusions that even people they trust reach which are counter to Trump, versus defending Trump, they reject even the people they trust.

 

Because its not a logical conclusion. (that Russia didn't do it). When not even the most biased investigation won't assert that...you know its a pretty bad piece of information by Binney here.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

No dodging the question. Why is it difficult to determine whether or not the DNC server was hacked? Do you think that might be on purpose?

Because all hacks are difficult to attribute. That's the point I think Conaway was making. To answer your second question, no. There's no difference between a data map by a third party and one you do yourself.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Because all hacks are difficult to attribute. That's the point I think Conaway was making. To answer your second question, no. There's no difference between a data map by a third party and one you do yourself.

 

The answer to the question posed was because "they can't inspect the equipment". What you and Slo Nutt are saying is please disregard:

 

1. Conway's uncertain statement (as certain as we can be is NOT a conclusion)

2. An international espionage case that tried to influence our National Election and the FBI lets the supposed victim (DNC) hire a contractor to investigate.

3. The aforementioned contractor has ties to Clinton and has been proven wrong in their assertions.

4. The same contractor was already working nefariously with the FBI and being given illegal access to 702 Raw Data.

 

So...........................disregard all those red flags.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

The answer to the question posed was because "they can't inspect the equipment". What you and Slo Nutt are saying is please disregard:

 

1. Conway's uncertain statement (as certain as we can be is NOT a conclusion)

2. An international espionage case that tried to influence our National Election and the FBI lets the supposed victim (DNC) hire a contractor to investigate.

3. The aforementioned contractor has ties to Clinton and has been proven wrong in their assertions.

4. The same contractor was already working nefariously with the FBI and being given illegal access to 702 Raw Data.

 

So...........................disregard all those red flags.

 

That's in addition to Strzok/Page/McCabe's texting, actions that reveal the FBI was trying to assist Hillary in rigging the election.

 

That's in addition to all the unmasking and leaking of classified info to frame a duly elected President.

 

That's in addition to all the FISA abuse/spying that occurred by the previous administration.

 

 

Yes, you want us to disregard all of that because of your desire to believe in the Russian/Trump frame up.

[12th Man 884]

 

 

 

Yes, you want us to disregard all of that because of your desire to believe in the Russian/Trump frame up.

This is what he believes and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

This is what he believes and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

 

Sure as hell seems as if the two of them are cut from the same cloth.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,552]

This is what he believes and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

It's all they have. Sad, really.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

The answer to the question posed was because "they can't inspect the equipment". What you and Slo Nutt are saying is please disregard:

 

1. Conway's uncertain statement (as certain as we can be is NOT a conclusion)

2. An international espionage case that tried to influence our National Election and the FBI lets the supposed victim (DNC) hire a contractor to investigate.

3. The aforementioned contractor has ties to Clinton and has been proven wrong in their assertions.

4. The same contractor was already working nefariously with the FBI and being given illegal access to 702 Raw Data.

 

So...........................disregard all those red flags.

 

 

 

So, you do agree with Conaway?

 

No. I trust Binney who is an expert on the NSA and cyber issues.

 

This is all I was referring to.

 

It sounds like you meant to say, yes you agree with Conaway assuming these other things you're assuming.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Ok, Conaway clearly said the committee talked to experts. Why didn't they talk to Binney or accept his conclusions?

 

FF, is it fair to say that the HSCI GOP having no interest in talking to Binney or adopting his claims mean that you and others can drop him as a reliable source now?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

 

That's in addition to Strzok/Page/McCabe's texting, actions that reveal the FBI was trying to assist Hillary in rigging the election.

 

That's in addition to all the unmasking and leaking of classified info to frame a duly elected President.

 

That's in addition to all the FISA abuse/spying that occurred by the previous administration.

 

 

Yes, you want us to disregard all of that because of your desire to believe in the Russian/Trump frame up.

 

I have a hard time getting you guys to agree on simple points that I think you already believe.

 

So, for instance I said that Nunes could reasonably have started writing his 150 page report weeks ago without having heard all the testimony that even just he felt was necessary.

 

And here I just tried to ask that you sign off on Conaway's comments.

 

I'm not even asking you to make comps. I'm fine if you want to talk about evidence in the Hillary investigation being ignored, or if you think the Russia investigation has been unfair and the like. Those are extended conversations, these were just two simple touchpoints.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

I have a hard time getting you guys to agree on simple points that I think you already believe.

 

So, for instance I said that Nunes could reasonably have started writing his 150 page report weeks ago without having heard all the testimony that even just he felt was necessary.

 

And here I just tried to ask that you sign off on Conaway's comments.

 

I'm not even asking you to make comps. I'm fine if you want to talk about evidence in the Hillary investigation being ignored, or if you think the Russia investigation has been unfair and the like. Those are extended conversations, these were just two simple touchpoints.

I think these guys (and I'm with them) keep telling you that they can't accept conclusions as to Russian hacking because nobody except Crowdstrike examined or supposedly examined the equipment and without that, their concurrence in the Russian hacking narrative is kind of meaningless.