Jump to content
NewbieJr

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I posted to the leader of the Republican HSCI investigation saying that he agrees with the IC assessment that the Russians hacked the DNC.

 

I am just asking you to agree with your own guy on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

So why do you think Mike Conaway does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Exactly.

 

In a court of law, that evidence wouldn't even be admissible let alone reliable enough to pass the smell test. For all the reasons pointed out, Saints and Slo STILL find Crowdstrike credible.

 

As soon as it was revealed the FBI just rubber stamped Crowdstrike's report or wasn't permitted access to the equipment DESPITE it being the smoking gun in an espionage case I had reservations. Those reservations proved correct now that we know Crowdstrike was one of two contractors working with FBI (other was Fusion GPS) and given access to 702 raw data.

 

But we're just supposed to take Clapper, Brennan and Comey's word on it (all three fired and leakers to boot). Sole dissenter of the Joint Analysis Report? Admiral Mike Rogers who is still on duty at the NSA. He is the one who blew open Operation Trump, forcing the conspirators to have to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I posted to the leader of the Republican HSCI investigation saying that he agrees with the IC assessment that the Russians hacked the DNC.

 

I am just asking you to agree with your own guy on this.

 

Again, the DNC may well have been hacked I.E. someone tried to gain access. That's entirely another matter than the DNC server hack where emails were stolen.

 

We know Podesta fell for a phishing scheme and that's how his were compromised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So why do you think Mike Conaway does?

I don't know. If he hasn't examined the equipment, why should I care what his opinion is? I'm not a mind reader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So why do you think Mike Conaway does?

 

Maybe he's just saying that because of how stupid the government would look if they now said they had no focking idea what happened during that hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe he's just saying that because of how stupid the government would look if they now said they had no focking idea what happened during that hack.

It's probably even worse than that. A forensic exam could tell if a portable storage device were plugged into a PC. If you say a server was hacked over the internet, you could show the IP address gaining access. If they say the IP address is of Russian origin, it almost certainly wasn't the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. If he hasn't examined the equipment, why should I care what his opinion is? I'm not a mind reader.

Because he's alead investigator for the whole committee. I guess I'm amazed you won't even rely on someone like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe he's just saying that because of how stupid the government would look if they now said they had no focking idea what happened during that hack.

That would make sense if he said that. But he didn't. He specifically said he agrees with the IC's conclusion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, the DNC may well have been hacked I.E. someone tried to gain access. That's entirely another matter than the DNC server hack where emails were stolen.

 

We know Podesta fell for a phishing scheme and that's how his were compromised.

Ok you're specifically disagreeing with Conaway again here. He ultimately says he agreed with the IC's conclusion. This is really unfortunate in the sense that you at least should trust Conaway on this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably even worse than that. A forensic exam could tell if a portable storage device were plugged into a PC. If you say a server was hacked over the internet, you could show the IP address gaining access. If they say the IP address is of Russian origin, it almost certainly wasn't the Russians.

Crowdstrike performed a forensic exam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok you're specifically disagreeing with Conaway again here. He ultimately says he agreed with the IC's conclusion. This is really unfortunate in the sense that you at least should trust Conaway on this point.

 

JFC..............again?! Conaway is saying 'As much as we can' i.e. we have to take their word for it because no one is allowed to investigate. His statement is far from 100%. I'll trust Mike Rogers (NSA Director) who abstained from backing the I.C.'s report with any degree of confidence. You know Mike, right? He's STILL employed as the NSA Director.

 

 

Take a moment and answer these questions:

If the NSA Director (who has access to EVERYFOCKING shred of IC intel) isn't confident, then why is anyone else?

 

Why are all those others now unemployed and facing investigations for leaking?

 

Do you find it odd the FBI didn't seize that equipment?

 

Do you find it odd the DNC wouldn't want to get the smoking gun out in the public to show WITHOUT doubt the Russians hacked?

 

Do you find it odd Crowdstrike was also working with the FBI and given access illegally to Raw Intel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdstrike performed a forensic exam.

 

They also were paid by whom to do this exam?

 

They also worked for whom as a contractor in 2016?

 

They also falsely attributed something to Russians hacking when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he's alead investigator for the whole committee. I guess I'm amazed you won't even rely on someone like that.

Really makes no difference. I don't fall for appeals to authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdstrike performed a forensic exam.

It was reported that Crowdstrike did a forensic exam. You and I have no idea whether they actually did or not. Then the equipment was conveniently destroyed? Sounds fishy. Makes no sense that the equipment would be destroyed, especially for a matter of such profound national importance as this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Not really...because they believe others stories on it who never saw the equipment.

And the FBI did see the underlying reports, data, and data copies...and examined the work that Crowdstrike did...a reputable company (despite the attacks from the right).

This was corroborated by an ally of the United States and agreed upon by the intelligence community (including those in there now who were appointed by Trump).

 

Not believing it was Russia at this point is not a logical conclusions. its not reasonable...its going against all fact simply to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdstrike performed a forensic exam.

which division of the FBI or US intelligence apparatus are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was reported that Crowdstrike did a forensic exam. You and I have no idea whether they actually did or not. Then the equipment was conveniently destroyed? Sounds fishy. Makes no sense that the equipment would be destroyed, especially for a matter of such profound national importance as this.

 

They have given their evidence to the FBI and other intelligence agencies have seen it as well...as well as copies of the data...and seen the metadata.

Equipment destroyed? NAny proof of this? Or just a claim on right wing media?

We know what Crowdstrike did (what could be posted was in the official Intelligence report)...we know their reputation...we know the Intel community agreed...we know Trumps own guys have agreed...and now this house committee apparently agrees as well as an ally's intelligence service who agrees it was the russians.

 

There is literally nothing pointing to anyone else...every fact points to the Russians...its not logical or reasonable at this point to conclude otherwise...yet some of you still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdstrike; contracted to produce a narrative which was then given to the American People to sell the Russian Collusion story. Just like Christopher Steele. Add a name to give garbage legitimacy.

 

Note how the left leaners avoid the question why didn't the FBI seize the server as evidence of espionage? They supposedly started the Russian investigation based on Pappadopolis running his mouth to an Aussie Diplomat but wouldn't seize equipment for National Security? Supposedly they're handed copies and told 'this is what happened'? How can anyone focking possibly believe our ELITE FBI is that focking gullible/stupid?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which division of the FBI or US intelligence apparatus are they?

Forensic computer science is a science. That means that if the proper method is used then it is acceptable as known fact in any venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They have given their evidence to the FBI and other intelligence agencies have seen it as well...as well as copies of the data...and seen the metadata.

Equipment destroyed? NAny proof of this? Or just a claim on right wing media?

We know what Crowdstrike did (what could be posted was in the official Intelligence report)...we know their reputation...we know the Intel community agreed...we know Trumps own guys have agreed...and now this house committee apparently agrees as well as an ally's intelligence service who agrees it was the russians.

 

There is literally nothing pointing to anyone else...every fact points to the Russians...its not logical or reasonable at this point to conclude otherwise...yet some of you still do.

You have two posts in a row where you claim to know things you cannot possibly know, which is what Crowdstrike did or did not do and then straight into the appeals to authority (the intelligence community agreed). These are not persuasive, especially where the vaunted "intelligence community" did not examine the equipment themselves. Neither is the report from our "ally" who claims to have verified this. One, because any hacker worth their salt knows how to cover their tracks and how to falsely attribute a hack to another country, etc. and second, the "Cozy Bear" group that they contend they uncovered isn't even a Russian gov't. op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forensic computer science is a science. That means that if the proper method is used then it is acceptable as known fact in any venue.

maybe the fbi should hire some forensic computer scientists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would make sense if he said that. But he didn't. He specifically said he agrees with the IC's conclusion.

 

If he said what? You asked why he would say what he said and I provided an answer. So I have no focking idea what you mean by "if he said that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowdstrike performed a forensic exam.

 

Ok, let's all agree that this is true. How do you know that what they put in to any reports they created is the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forensic computer science is a science. That means that if the proper method is used then it is acceptable as known fact in any venue.

Forensic computer examination is a method or a compilation of methods that is applied to physical objects. You are telling me to accept some political outfit's supposed analysis and cloaking it in the term science as though it is unassailable. I'm not buying it. Part of a computer forensic exam is establishing and maintaining a chain of custody. Where is that equipment now?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimminy Christmas! Saints and Slo Puff are two sides of the same coin. How do you guys have the energy to deal with these dolts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was reported that Crowdstrike did a forensic exam. You and I have no idea whether they actually did or not. Then the equipment was conveniently destroyed? Sounds fishy. Makes no sense that the equipment would be destroyed, especially for a matter of such profound national importance as this.

If the exam wasn't forensic the HSCI GOP would have been all over that Day 1, but they have never ever claimed that and they have had experts look over the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimminy Christmas! Saints and Slo Puff are two sides of the same coin. How do you guys have the energy to deal with these dolts?

Well I will give them credit for at least being interested in the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have two posts in a row where you claim to know things you cannot possibly know, which is what Crowdstrike did or did not do and then straight into the appeals to authority (the intelligence community agreed). These are not persuasive, especially where the vaunted "intelligence community" did not examine the equipment themselves. Neither is the report from our "ally" who claims to have verified this. One, because any hacker worth their salt knows how to cover their tracks and how to falsely attribute a hack to another country, etc. and second, the "Cozy Bear" group that they contend they uncovered isn't even a Russian gov't. op.

I know whats in the report from the IC. I dont know exactly as I didnt hold Crowdtrikes hand as they did their work.

I know the intelligence community through approval of the DNI agreed with the conclusion. I know even Trump appointeeswho have seen evidence have agreed (Rogers, Pompeo, Tillerson, McMaster). I know even this sham of a committee agrees. I know the intelligence arm of an ally agreed and corroborated.

I know that no credible person who has seen any of the evidence has said otherwise.

 

You have what? Hack ass sites claiming otherwise without seeing any real evidence of their own to support their conclusion. Thats it. Claiming all those other groups lied or made it up without one shred of evidence.

 

How is that a logical or reasonable conclusion?

 

If Mueller presentsthat weak of an argument against Trump...no way youd feel the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the exam wasn't forensic the HSCI GOP would have been all over that Day 1, but they have never ever claimed that and they have had experts look over the data.

 

Data provided by whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, let's all agree that this is true. How do you know that what they put in to any reports they created is the truth?

I will rely on others' expertise. At least accept that the HSCI GOP's experts would have reported that they were wrong but per Conaway they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will give them credit for at least being interested in the facts.

 

Would be nice if at some point you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, let's all agree that this is true. How do you know that what they put in to any reports they created is the truth?

Corroborated by the data copies, explaining their methodology to the intel community, metadata supporting their claims as well as an ally corroborating the conclusions?

 

Have any evidence that they made it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will give them credit for at least being interested in the facts.

You got lumped up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would be nice if at some point you were.

He and I have posted actual facts.

You all just keep claiming its all wrong.

Have brought zero to support your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corroborated by the data copies, explaining their methodology to the intel community, metadata supporting their claims as well as an ally corroborating the conclusions?

 

Have any evidence that they made it up?

 

Do you even know what metadata is? Need a response within 2 minutes so I know you didn't Google. :overhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know whats in the report from the IC. I dont know exactly as I didnt hold Crowdtrikes hand as they did their work.

I know the intelligence community through approval of the DNI agreed with the conclusion. I know even Trump appointeeswho have seen evidence have agreed (Rogers, Pompeo, Tillerson, McMaster). I know even this sham of a committee agrees. I know the intelligence arm of an ally agreed and corroborated.

I know that no credible person who has seen any of the evidence has said otherwise.

 

You have what? Hack ass sites claiming otherwise without seeing any real evidence of their own to support their conclusion. Thats it. Claiming all those other groups lied or made it up without one shred of evidence.

 

How is that a logical or reasonable conclusion?

 

If Mueller presentsthat weak of an argument against Trump...no way youd feel the same.

What hack ass sites? Please go read Annex B to the intelligence community's report. I'll post the salient language: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents."

 

Tell me again what you think you know or what you think they know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the exam wasn't forensic the HSCI GOP would have been all over that Day 1, but they have never ever claimed that and they have had experts look over the data.

What data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×