Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
varwoche said:
By all means, pass on these vital data points to the FBI Director, CIA Director, National Security Adviser, Sec of Homeland Security, and Director of National Intelligence. These Trump appointees somehow operate under the delusion that Russia is the culprit.

I enjoy how you scare-quoted "Russians" up-thread. Careful, you're a half step away from "sheeple".
Click to expand...

I'm sure he'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat.

River said:
Are you aware that the transfer speeds on the files that were "hacked" is pretty well regarded as not possible overseas? Many IT and former officials have weighed in on that opinion.
Click to expand...

As an IT guy outside of the US, and knowing others abroad, this is full of ****.

You're also disregarding the statement from Assange.
Click to expand...

Assange can burn in hell for all I care.
 
River said:
Here is a nice overview of the speed issue. Note the speeds listed in the video, and what you have linked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeTtd2Kh90Y
Click to expand...

Do you think you could cite something else than Youtube videos? Just because the author of the video tells you things you find nice to hear doesn't mean you should believe them. In fact, it means you should be more suspicious of the claim.
 
Belz... said:
Do you think you could cite something else than Youtube videos? Just because the author of the video tells you things you find nice to hear doesn't mean you should believe them. In fact, it means you should be more suspicious of the claim.
Click to expand...

Right. Well I can see from the reponses that some only want one outcome and have their minds made up. To me, there is a lot left uncovered. What I hope more than any partisan view is; the American public learns the truth.

There seems to be a lot of intentional propaganda tossed out from both sides.
 
Belz... said:
I'm sure he'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat.



As an IT guy outside of the US, and knowing others abroad, this is full of ****.



Assange can burn in hell for all I care.
Click to expand...

I vote more for candidates than party. You may have missed up thread where I posted that I voted for Obama both terms. Russia? Nope. If I were to choose a place outside of the USA to live it would not be Russia.
 
Foolmewunz said:
It's Russia Today?
Click to expand...

Wow, you're absolutely right.

River, you do know that RT is literally Russian propaganda, don't you? It's Russian state media, funded by the Kremlin.

Kind of puts your earlier crack about the DNC spokesperson into perspective, really.
 
Foolmewunz said:
That's some fine sourcing. Consider yourself lucky that the Laughter Chorus has refused to click your link.

It's Russia Today? That's a "nice overview"? Some copies of some on line comments from users who say they know this just couldn't be.

All that's missing is "I am Jeanne from Topeka for my whole live and not from Russia at all. I be working many years time in computering. I am knowing this is not possible because glorious Russian servers still use hamsters on they flywheels."
Click to expand...

:p

Yeah.
I mean, I kinda like RT sometimes, but the idea of using them as a source of rebuttal for something like this is...pretty out there.
 
River said:
Right. Well I can see from the reponses that some only want one outcome and have their minds made up. To me, there is a lot left uncovered. What I hope more than any partisan view is; the American public learns the truth.

There seems to be a lot of intentional propaganda tossed out from both sides.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced it wasn't a leak, personally. This whole thing is incredibly complex, and it's hard to keep track of what the current arguments even are, because they keep changing.

But your evidence sucks.
 
River said:
The only source for that claim (russia hacked the emails) is those opposition (dnc) funded reports.
Click to expand...
Actually no, its not. In fact, evidence comes from other sources, including multiple intelligence agencies (including foreign ones).

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-the-dutch-evidence-of-the-dnc-hack
Assange says different.
Click to expand...
And we should believe him why? He has never provided any evidence that the hacks were perpetrated by someone else.

Lets look at Assange's background, shall we?

Assange:

- Has worked for Russian sources before (He was on a TV program that was sponsored by the Russian government. See: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties)

- Has shown an extreme dislike for both the U.S., and Hillary Clinton in general, so supporting a russian-backed effort to install Trump would kill 2 birds with one stone. In fact even former allies of Assange have raised flags about the way he focuses on the U.S. and its allies and ignores many transgressions involving Russia

- Was visited multiple times by a Russian Oligarch who has since been charged. (These visits were recorded in visitor logs for the embassy where he is staying.) Now, nobody knows what was discussed during the visits, but it does raise some concerns. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...h-visited-julian-assange-nine-times-last-year

- While the data dumps that Wikileaks releases may be accurate, Assange does have a habit of being rather duplicitous personally (in the embassy he is living in, he has been found breaking into secured rooms, reading personal files, etc. Then there was the claim that he would turn himself in if Manning were released, which of course he did not do. Plus, he's stuck in the embassy because he himself lied to British authorities and skipped bail.)

So what is more likely: that multiple (independent) intelligence agencies were somehow wrong about Russian involvement, or that an Assange (an individual who has the motivation to see Trump win, a history of Russian contacts, and a track record of dishonest behavior) would be lying about Wikileaks involvement with the Russians.

Perhaps if Assange actually provided evidence that the source was not the Russians that evidence can be judged on its merits. But at this point we have no reason to accept Assange at his word.
 
Belz... said:
Do you think you could cite something else than Youtube videos? Just because the author of the video tells you things you find nice to hear doesn't mean you should believe them. In fact, it means you should be more suspicious of the claim.
Click to expand...

I'm at work and can't check the youtubes. Can someone break this down for me? I am not following the conversation very well, but is this saying that network speeds vary therefore it can't be Russia?
 
Last edited:
River said:
Right. Well I can see from the reponses that some only want one outcome and have their minds made up.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. You don't get to dodge the issue that you've only used Youtube videos rather than actual sourced papers and articles, and that you've ignored the findings of experts based on frivolous reasons. You still need to retract all that.

I vote more for candidates than party. You may have missed up thread where I posted that I voted for Obama both terms. Russia? Nope. If I were to choose a place outside of the USA to live it would not be Russia.
Click to expand...

Chill, dude. It was a joke.
 
plague311 said:
I'm at work and can't check the youtubes. Can someone break this down for me? I am not following the conversation vary well, but is this saying that network speeds vary therefore it can't be Russia?
Click to expand...

Who cares? His source is Russia Today, a Russian propaganda outlet. There's nothing of interest to see.
 
River said:
I vote more for candidates than party. You may have missed up thread where I posted that I voted for Obama both terms. Russia? Nope. If I were to choose a place outside of the USA to live it would not be Russia.
Click to expand...

What a coincidence, so do I! Heck, now I'm registered Libertarian. And I didn't vote for Obama. Though I did vote for Kerry...

And your evidence still sucks.
 
River said:
Right. Well I can see from the reponses that some only want one outcome and have their minds made up. To me, there is a lot left uncovered. What I hope more than any partisan view is; the American public learns the truth.

There seems to be a lot of intentional propaganda tossed out from both sides.
Click to expand...

That you hope the American public learns the truth implies we don't know the truth. You seem to have your mind made up that there exists some secret alternate truth based upon alternate facts pushed by the alt right and known Russian propaganda outlets.

Not every topic has equally valid evidence and arguments on both sides.
 
The_Animus said:
That you hope the American public learns the truth implies we don't know the truth. You seem to have your mind made up that there exists some secret alternate truth based upon alternate facts pushed by the alt right and known Russian propaganda outlets.

Not every topic has equally valid evidence and arguments on both sides.
Click to expand...

You think the earth is round, I think it's flat. Two possibilities share 100%, ergo we're each 50% likely to be correct, but I don't mind agreeing that we're both 50% correct if you will.
 
Elagabalus said:
Man, those chicks from RT are Hawt!!

What we're we talking about again?

Oh, yeah. Man, those chicks from RT are Hawt!!

Doh!! I did it again!!



Seriously, you're expecting Putin's Mouthpiece to tell the truth?
Click to expand...

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Wow, you're absolutely right.

River, you do know that RT is literally Russian propaganda, don't you? It's Russian state media, funded by the Kremlin.

Kind of puts your earlier crack about the DNC spokesperson into perspective, really.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm well aware of what RT is and how they may be biased.

kellyb said:
I'm not convinced it wasn't a leak, personally. This whole thing is incredibly complex, and it's hard to keep track of what the current arguments even are, because they keep changing.

But your evidence sucks.
Click to expand...

It's not "my evidence" it's what is available on the issues. I have not chosen a side or outcome, but I have noticed a lot of slinging of poo.

Segnosaur said:
Actually no, its not. In fact, evidence comes from other sources, including multiple intelligence agencies (including foreign ones).

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-the-dutch-evidence-of-the-dnc-hack

And we should believe him why? He has never provided any evidence that the hacks were perpetrated by someone else.

Lets look at Assange's background, shall we?

Assange:

- Has worked for Russian sources before (He was on a TV program that was sponsored by the Russian government. See: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties)

- Has shown an extreme dislike for both the U.S., and Hillary Clinton in general, so supporting a russian-backed effort to install Trump would kill 2 birds with one stone. In fact even former allies of Assange have raised flags about the way he focuses on the U.S. and its allies and ignores many transgressions involving Russia

- Was visited multiple times by a Russian Oligarch who has since been charged. (These visits were recorded in visitor logs for the embassy where he is staying.) Now, nobody knows what was discussed during the visits, but it does raise some concerns. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...h-visited-julian-assange-nine-times-last-year

- While the data dumps that Wikileaks releases may be accurate, Assange does have a habit of being rather duplicitous personally (in the embassy he is living in, he has been found breaking into secured rooms, reading personal files, etc. Then there was the claim that he would turn himself in if Manning were released, which of course he did not do. Plus, he's stuck in the embassy because he himself lied to British authorities and skipped bail.)

So what is more likely: that multiple (independent) intelligence agencies were somehow wrong about Russian involvement, or that an Assange (an individual who has the motivation to see Trump win, a history of Russian contacts, and a track record of dishonest behavior) would be lying about Wikileaks involvement with the Russians.

Perhaps if Assange actually provided evidence that the source was not the Russians that evidence can be judged on its merits. But at this point we have no reason to accept Assange at his word.
Click to expand...

Assange has been quite accurate in the past with his "leaks" and posts. A good question might be, will Assange be arrested or pressed for evidence.



Belz... said:
No, no, no. You don't get to dodge the issue that you've only used Youtube videos rather than actual sourced papers and articles, and that you've ignored the findings of experts based on frivolous reasons. You still need to retract all that.



Chill, dude. It was a joke.
Click to expand...

The only thing I retract is my tool after its done working. But thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom