Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
River said:
1) The article mentioned and quoted the statement, and also had a rebuttal to it. This does not negate the fact nunes and others said Mccabe stated there wouldve been no warrant granted without the dossier in a closed door hearing. (see nunes memo, and yes ive seen the democrat rebuttal) So who is lying? Take your choice, both sides cannot be correct.
Click to expand...
A lot of words, but still no quote of the specific text that you think makes your case. Unimpressive.

2) The video linked was from RT however there are many others out there and articles out there with the same information. The RT was the first one I found. Don't like the messenger, shoot it.
Click to expand...
The message is positively inane and the messenger is the epitome of a propagandist. Presented as a youtube no less. Sharpen your pencil.
 
varwoche said:
A lot of words, but still no quote of the specific text that you think makes your case. Unimpressive.

The message is positively inane and the messenger is the epitome of a propagandist. Presented as a youtube no less. Sharpen your pencil.
Click to expand...

Nope. Instead, I'll wait until we have all of the evidence. I don't expect what is out there now to change anyones mind. I do enjoy discussing it though, even with people who refuse to acknowledge information -- even if they do not like the source.
 
River said:
Not surprised by your response. If you don't like the information that's fine. Here is another source for the same info. Not RT.



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story
Click to expand...

You are a Bloomberg subscriber I see. May I be the third or fourth person to ask you to please excerpt the relevant portions of whatever video or article that you feel support your argument?

e8d74967da0e44bf2e2ac3578887269f.png
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
You are a Bloomberg subscriber I see. May I be the third or fourth person to ask you to please excerpt the relevant portions of whatever video or article that you feel support your argument?

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180912/e8d74967da0e44bf2e2ac3578887269f.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

If you go to private browsing (on Firefox) you'll get a poorly formatted but complete article. However, it's just a rehash of what the poster said earlier.
 
River said:
Can you please describe how you feel it was, as in by what means? (election fraud? votes counts changed? fake votes placed, or write in your theory and any support for it)
Click to expand...

Prove it wasn't.

All you have are opinions and in one case the data was erased before it could be checked. There was no paper or other data backup.
 
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. You're also disregarding the statement from Assange.

Where these investigations lead should be interesting. Both sides cannot be telling the truth. Crowdstrike and Fusiongps reports were both DNC funded.

Here is one of those opinions about the speed of transfer.
Click to expand...
OMG! Now you are citing RT.

That's a Russian propaganda source. I guess it's working for them.

Sad.
 
Belz... said:
Now you're going into dishonest territory. It has nothing to do with whether I like the information, and you know it.



Paywall.
Click to expand...

Below for those unable to read the article.

https://bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story" https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic..._medium=social

In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
River's armor of ignorance and unwillingness to look at evidence that refutes his opinions makes me wonder why River is not in the Trump administration.
 
VIPS memos are not without severe criticism. So much so that even Wikipedia lists some of said criticisms:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity

According to John Hultquist of FireEye: "The author of the report didn't consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims." Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk, pointed out that the VIPS theory "assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer" but overlooks the likelihood that the files were copied several times before they were leaked, potentially creating new metadata each time. Barger's comments were echoed by other cyber-security experts.[14] The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence's article on behalf of The Nation, concluding that while "the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate," it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it. Freitas stated that the high throughput suggested by the relevant metadata could have been achieved by a hacker under several different scenarios, including through the use of a remote access trojan, and that the leak hypothesis also requires "the target server ... to be physically on site in the building": "If the files were stored remotely 'in the cloud,' then the same criticism of 'it is not possible to get those speeds' would come into play." In sum: "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved."[15]
Click to expand...
 
River said:
The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it.
Click to expand...
Weasel words. That statement could be true even if there was no change in public opinion. Furthermore, phrases such as 'didn't quite buy' and 'sold on it' imply that anyone who accepts the fact of Russian interference is being duped. And the word 'and' suggests that Clinton lost the election because 'The U.S. public' didn't believe her regarding 'the Russians did it' which is ridiculous.

That article is clearly attempting to manipulate the reader into believing a bunch of lies and half-truths. If the rest of that wall of text uses similar tactics then reading it might actually be harmful to your brain. We need some facts to repair the damage...

US public opinion of Russia took a nosedive well before the 2016 elections, and hasn't changed much since. Polls taken in early 2017 show that more people thought Russia did interfere than didn't, eg.

Quinnipiac University Poll. Jan. 20-25, 2017. N=1,190 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.8.
"Do you think that the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election, or not?"

think they did 53%
think they didn't 39%
Unsure/no answer 8%

"Do you approve or disapprove of the new sanctions ordered by the U.S. government against Russia in retaliation for alleged election interference?"

Approve 56%
Disapprove 30%
Unsure/no answer 14%
Click to expand...
You think 56% would approve of sanctions if they didn't think the Russians did it?

But of course those 56% are just the ones who were 'sold on it', while 'the US public' didn't quite buy it. Furthermore nobody was saying that they did it before they did it, which proves that bitch Hillary was lying! :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • russia popularity.jpg
    russia popularity.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
River said:
1) The article mentioned and quoted the statement, and also had a rebuttal to it. This does not negate the fact nunes and others said Mccabe stated there wouldve been no warrant granted without the dossier in a closed door hearing. (see nunes memo, and yes ive seen the democrat rebuttal) So who is lying? Take your choice, both sides cannot be correct.
Click to expand...

Again, the Nunes memo was being quite deceitful with the omission of relevant facts and surrounding context that would undermine their attempted spin, including on that topic, as even the House Intel Republicans found themselves admitting in the final report that they released. There is NO reasonable doubt to be found about that given the quite sufficient information available.

Seriously, the entire attack Steele and attack the Dossier lines of argument by the GOP show just how absolutely terrible a hand they have to work with, and little more. The Dossier is largely irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, after all, and became public well after the election, so it certainly did not affect the election.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom