Posted by: tungsten
It is hilarious how glued to sound bites he is. He probably thinks Israel is Jewish Disneyland.
Trump.
Posted by: tungsten
Calling it Russiagate and looking at it as a political scandal is a distraction from the fact Russia is running a sophisticated and successful propaganda operation on middle America. Something that one would assume a website called propogandastudies.com would have a handle on.
Plus, your story is old and it is obvious this guy didn't read the future well.
Even if we address RussiaGate as a problem worthy of our attention, the evidentiary basis for the major claims is weak. The ultimate unfolding of RussiaGate discourse now awaits the much-anticipated report of Special Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller. ~ Oliver Boyd-Barrett
Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. ~ Robert Mueller III
Posted by: chupacabra
Even if we address RussiaGate as a problem worthy of our attention, the evidentiary basis for the major claims is weak. The ultimate unfolding of RussiaGate discourse now awaits the much-anticipated report of Special Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller. ~ Oliver Boyd-Barrett
Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. ~ Robert Mueller III
How'd Muellers testimony work out for you?
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
They didn't take possession of the server, but if you want to explain why they needed it to investigate how it was hacked please feel free to enlighten us all. I took computing science in college so don't be shy if it gets technical.
How important is the server to the narrative?
To Trump's narrative? Very important. He must have consulted Baron.
This should be an easy example.
Imagine if you took my word for something; where you're the FBI and I'm the outsourced Crowdstrike. Would anyone else in NBR take your word for what I said when it came to light that you used my info? Most likely not me thinks.
Conversely, I'm pretty sure the FBI said there was no evidence of a hack which means they didnt do their job. How did the FBI prove no hack without having the box? How can you be so sure of the download speed? Would you trust my info?
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
They didn't take possession of the server, but if you want to explain why they needed it to investigate how it was hacked please feel free to enlighten us all. I took computing science in college so don't be shy if it gets technical.
How important is the server to the narrative?
To Trump's narrative? Very important. He must have consulted Baron.
This should be an easy example.
Imagine if you took my word for something; where you're the FBI and I'm the outsourced Crowdstrike. Would anyone else in NBR take your word for what I said when it came to light that you used my info? Most likely not me thinks.
Conversely, I'm pretty sure the FBI said there was no evidence of a hack which means they didnt do their job. How did the FBI prove no hack without having the box? How can you be so sure of the download speed? Would you trust my info?
I don't think Crowdstrike ever had the actual server either. They run a script that pulls all the data off the computer and then they analyze the results. That file was given to the FBI. With that information, they would then trace where it came from and where the data went, which is presumably how the FBI found the American servers the Russians were using. They have not released these details, so I don't have all the answers, but there is no reason to not believe Mueller other than you don't want to. For me it is just about trust, it is about plausibility. How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy? 50 people maybe? From people within the DNC to Crowdstrike staff, to FBI agents and lawyers all the way to up Mueller? Why involve Crowdstrike at all if the FBI was in on it? Who would have the motive and resources to orchestrate the whole thing? The conspiracy is pretty complicated for a plan to leak some emails.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
How'd Muellers testimony work out for you?
It went pretty much how I expected, but if you already thought his report wasn't damning for Trump I doubt you would change your mind.
Here is a 30-second recap in case you missed it.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
How'd Muellers testimony work out for you?
It went pretty much how I expected, but if you already thought his report wasn't damning for Trump I doubt you would change your mind.
Here is a 30-second recap in case you missed it.
Not sure what to say other than you obviously dont agree with the majority of the press saying Mueller was shambolic at best and ruined the Dem's chance of impeachment?
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
This should be an easy example.
Imagine if you took my word for something; where you're the FBI and I'm the outsourced Crowdstrike. Would anyone else in NBR take your word for what I said when it came to light that you used my info? Most likely not me thinks.
Conversely, I'm pretty sure the FBI said there was no evidence of a hack which means they didnt do their job. How did the FBI prove no hack without having the box? How can you be so sure of the download speed? Would you trust my info?
I don't think Crowdstrike ever had the actual server either. They run a script that pulls all the data off the computer and then they analyze the results. That file was given to the FBI. With that information, they would then trace where it came from and where the data went, which is presumably how the FBI found the American servers the Russians were using. They have not released these details, so I don't have all the answers, but there is no reason to not believe Mueller other than you don't want to. For me it is just about trust, it is about plausibility. How many people would have to be involved in this conspiracy? 50 people maybe? From people within the DNC to Crowdstrike staff, to FBI agents and lawyers all the way to up Mueller? Why involve Crowdstrike at all if the FBI was in on it? Who would have the motive and resources to orchestrate the whole thing? The conspiracy is pretty complicated for a plan to leak some emails.
Why run a script that cant show active ports - just pull a server log instead? Unless you can log active ports and ip's after the fact... I'm rusty on my IT and maybe thats a new forensic thing.
So you agree, the conspiracy angle makes more sense when you consider one person leaked the emails. Regarding the actual hack, not that many would have to present. One IT guy from the DNC, Crowdstrike and then the FBI team.
One question about the Russian servers - did they ever tie those machines into tampering with votes?
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
How'd Muellers testimony work out for you?
It went pretty much how I expected, but if you already thought his report wasn't damning for Trump I doubt you would change your mind.
Here is a 30-second recap in case you missed it.
Not sure what to say other than you obviously dont agree with the majority of the press saying Mueller was shambolic at best and ruined the Dem's chance of impeachment?
I have been telling you for years that I don't blindly follow what I hear in the media.
Shambolic?? LOL, no, they are saying it was total mess outside of Fox. It didn't ruin chances of impeachment as there was never a chance as long as the Senate is filled with Trump's fluffers and run by McConnell. As for starting the impeachment process in Congress, I don't think it changed public perception much and some people were hoping that it would, but Mueller made it crystal clear that the report is his testimony and he is a dry as they come so I didn't expect anything game-changing. The same evidence of obstruction is still in the report, it is just a matter of what people want to do with it. Within the members of Congress, support for impeachment keeps increasing though and is close to 50%, so I think there is about an 80% chance they will proceed in the next few months. Buckle up.
Last edited by: chupacabra on July 31, 2019, 8:46 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/voter-purge-rates-remain-high-analysis-finds
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html
Last edited by: tungsten on Aug. 3, 2019, 6:30 p.m., edited 2 times in total.
As long as you have sorted out who "the problem" is, we can all relax.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Not sure what to say other than you obviously dont agree with the majority of the press saying Mueller was shambolic at best and ruined the Dem's chance of impeachment?
I have been telling you for years that I don't blindly follow what I hear in the media.
Shambolic?? LOL, no, they are saying it was total mess outside of Fox. It didn't ruin chances of impeachment as there was never a chance as long as the Senate is filled with Trump's fluffers and run by McConnell. As for starting the impeachment process in Congress, I don't think it changed public perception much and some people were hoping that it would, but Mueller made it crystal clear that the report is his testimony and he is a dry as they come so I didn't expect anything game-changing. The same evidence of obstruction is still in the report, it is just a matter of what people want to do with it. Within the members of Congress, support for impeachment keeps increasing though and is close to 50%, so I think there is about an 80% chance they will proceed in the next few months. Buckle up.
I'd be buckling down right now if I was in the US. At least Mueller's out of the news but look at all the shit in his place.
They will not impeach or try to until the new year.
* Voters earning less than $50,000 (Sanders – 22%; Warren – 12%)
* Voters without college degrees (Sanders – 22%; Warren – 10%)
* Voters with college degrees (Sanders – 16%; Warren – 15%)
* Voters with postgraduate degrees (Sanders – 12%; Warren – 19%)
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/12/dear-progressives-for-warren-your-class-is-showing/
* Support from 18-29 voters (Sanders – 33+%; Warren – 11%)
* Support from 30-44 voters (Sanders – 25%; Warren – 13%)
* Support from 45-54 voters (Sanders – 17%; Warren – 12%)
* Support from 55-64 voters (Sanders – 12%; Warren – 13%)
* Support from 65+ voters (Sanders – 8%; Warren – 13%)
Last edited by: tungsten on Aug. 12, 2019, 10:21 p.m., edited 3 times in total.
Forum jump:
