Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
I'm a network administrator/engineer/technician/whateveriscoolnowadays

I was more curious from a technical standpoint.
Click to expand...

The gist of the issue is the meta data which showed time stamps, and transfer rates internationally vs local transfer.
 
River said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's because he chooses what information to get, and out of that what to release. Do you see how that could be manipulative?

He hasn't been arrested yet, and I don't particularly care whether he is or not, unless he is actually guilty of something.
 
Since today is September 11, it's worth noting that River's bandwidth argument is right up there with the self-appointed building design experts who used to post in the 9/11 conspiracy forum. On that subject, Russia Today told us that hundreds and hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were in the World Trade Center.

Maybe, again like some posters in that forum, it's just performance art, and not meant to be taken seriously. But when "performance art" is the best possible explanation for your (lack of) argument, you are definitely losing.
 
carlitos said:
Since today is September 11, it's worth noting that River's bandwidth argument is right up there with the self-appointed building design experts who used to post in the 9/11 conspiracy forum. On that subject, Russia Today told us that hundreds and hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were in the World Trade Center.

Maybe, again like some posters in that forum, it's just performance art, and not meant to be taken seriously. But when "performance art" is the best possible explanation for your (lack of) argument, you are definitely losing.
Click to expand...
I think Dunning-Kruger is always a much more likely explanation than Poe. Good Poe takes so much mental effort.
 
River said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's completely irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not Assange knows, with confidence, the ultimate source of the hacking. You never answered my previous question:

How could Assange be expected to know whether the Russians were behind the hack or not?

Assange was merely the messenger boy.
 
River said:
Someone must be lying right, either nunes or mccabe, take your pick. Note that there are other witnesses to the fact mccabe made the statement in a closed door hearing. Who was present at the hearing? Ask those entities. Has mccabe been honest to the press? Has comey? Has clinton? (or trump for that matter?)
Click to expand...

Ever happen to pay attention to the House Democrat's reponse? Short version is that the Nunes memo lied about that matter via pointed omission, and that's rather backed up with an understanding of how those things work, in the first place. That seems to be further backed up even by the later House Republican report on the matter which admitted that the investigation into the Trump campaign started in relation to Papadopoulos, well before the Steele dossier came into the picture.

River said:
I also find it humorous that many democrats seem to feel like "the russians" influenced the outcome of the election. Or that votes/vote counts were somehow altered or changed.
Click to expand...

Influenced? Of course they did. Changed? That's much harder to tell, but it's worth bearing in mind that the concept of the straw that breaks the camel's back is in play (well, if you're into understatement), with that straw being all the more annoying because it was the result of illegal actions. The mysterious and sudden change of Trump campaign strategy right after Democratic strategy information was stolen sure raises a big red flag, though. Votes/vote counts somehow being altered or changed? If you were one of Putin's agents and you had access to voter rolls, as they apparently did in a couple states, would there be much reason for you not to quietly delete a few names of the supporters of the candidate that you didn't want? Votes and later vote counts being outright changed is a different matter entirely.
 
Last edited:
River said:
The only thing I retract is my tool after its done working. But thanks.
Click to expand...
How very Trump-like. Let's review and confirm:

(1) You cited CNN, but the article didn't make your case. In fact it refuted your case. Do you stand behind this citation? If so, please quote the precise bits that you think make your case.

(2) You cited RT. Do you stand behind this citation? Is there any particular reason readers should assign more weight to RT than to Trump's entire national security senior team? These Trump appointees would be strongly motivated to agree with you, if what you're foisting was within shouting distance of reality.

TIA.
 
Last edited:
The lack of apostrophe makes that tool reference more difficult to parse. Is that a dick joke, completely out of context?
 
River said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've already pointed out that the data in the wikileaks dumps was accurate. What I pointed out was that Assange, when dealing with personal or internal Wikileaks matters, is often dishonest/untrustworthy.

Assange said he'd turn himself over if Manning was released. Manning was released. Assange has not turned himself over.

Assange told the British court system "Sure, you can let me out on bail and I won't try to avoid prosecution". Assange skipped bail to hid in the embassy.

Assange promised the Ecuadorians he wouldn't interfere with other countries while he was in residence at their embassy. He got involved with an internal spanish referendum.

Assange also: broke into rooms in the embassy that he was specifically told not to enter, and was illegally accessing staff information files.

So why would you find someone like that more trustworthy than MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES (staffed by people on both sides of the political spectrum), as well as the intelligence services from other countries?

A good question might be, will Assange be arrested or pressed for evidence.
Click to expand...
Why is that relevant to the issue about whether Assange was being honest when he said "Russia wasn't the source"?

Plenty of people lie about their involvement in crimes. Assange (wanting Wikileaks to appear unbiased, even if he's not) has the motivation to lie about Russia being the source.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
How very Trump-like. Let's review and confirm:

(1) You cited CNN, but the article didn't make your case. In fact it refuted your case. Do you stand behind this citation? If so, please quote the precise bits that you think make your case.

(2) You cited RT. Do you stand behind this citation? Is there any particular reason readers should assign more weight to RT than to Trump's entire national security senior team? These Trump appointees would be strongly motivated to agree with you, if what you're foisting was within shouting distance of reality.

TIA.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

3) There are a lot of ongoing investigations out there right now, addressing these very issues. We should have more information with time. I for one hope the president decides to declassify related documents so that the people see what actually happened, instead of everyones spin on it. Personally tired of the he said she said going back and forth between partisanships.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had, more or less, this same example in my head when typing my post. Get off my wavelength! ;)
 
River said:
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...

You're still ignoring the evidence that proves that the RT video is utterly irrelevant. At this point I can only assume it's deliberate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom