Why is Trump not doing anything about the Russians meddling.
With all of Trump's Intel agencies testifying before congress that the Russians meddled in the Presidential election, he has done nothing to prevent this from happening in the future. I cannot imagine any past POTUS ignoring this threat to our country. I realize he doesn't want to bring attention to this subject, but this is a real threat to our election system.
It's known Russian has also meddled in the French elections and even the Brexit vote. How do you feel about the problem?I am disturbed that our president chooses to believe Putin over his intelligence professionals. I am bothered that our president will readily attack fellow Americans like John McCain but will say nary a negative word about Putin. And, yes, it is highly disturbing that he has taken no actions to protect the integrity of future elections.
I do hope that the good men and women in our intelligence agencies are doing what they can on their own."... but will say nary a negative word about Putin."
?? And yet, when he says bad things about Kim everybody shushes him as trying to cause a war. How does that work?Who is "everybody"? I'm who you are replying to and I've never complained once about what Trump says about Kim.
It's not relevant to the point, anyway. Something is off. Why does our president believe Putin over our own intelligence professionals? Why does a a guy who readily insults his allies go out of his way to flatter Putin?I have one Question. What would you have Trump do? It is funny you do not ask the same question but ask why Obama did nothing? It may be time you realize, hacking is not something that can easily be stopped or we most certainly would have stopped it many years ago. Trump can not be blamed for the out of control hacking that is prevalent around the world.
Our Intel is the best, Pretty Panther! It's sad the right has resorted to attacking them, as well as. trying to blame the media for Trump's misadventures. The first thing a dictator does is to shut down the press!!
I'm following a discussion that indicates that possibly Russian money has been involved in the elections of several people. No one questioned Julie (?) Stein about why she was sitting at the table with Flynn ... in Russia. Now they are.
Have you all not been listening to the intelligence committee , the Mueller team ?THERE IS NO TRUMP / RUSSIAN COLLUSION to date , No I expect not . It would take a Russian invasion to convince the left that Trump loves America more , even than the left HERE does ! Foreign influence in elections ? Foreign money in politics?
Look....... only as far as your Clinton's !Fox News watchers probably don't know this and/or think it's more fake news, Diane. Watch for more Fox Talking Points from the cons.
Meanwhile, Trump Jr. cannot keep his mouth shut and is asking for trouble. Reminds me of someone...
The nut doesn't fall far from the tree....It's amazing how polarizing this is. The congressional group that is investigating the investigation is something I never heard of before. Don't those investigations have to be approved. Are they doing it in their spare time? Why can't it be part of the ongoing investigation.
sigh
Do you mean like Jill Stein ? Hilary Clinton ?
Hi there Randy. Let's see if we can agree on what the known Russian meddling was. It would make it easier to offer an answer to your question.
I know that there are suspected, and, claimed, collusion charges, but to date there is no accepted proof of that. The other meddling that I have seen in the news is the Russian's, (or pro-Russian actors), use of Social Media, fake blog posts, fake "news" articles, and agenda driven advertising - by both humans and bots. There seems to be general acceptance of the "facts" of the latter. Is that the meddling you are speaking of?
If you are speaking of the suspected, claimed, and in some cases documented hacking attempts - then, from what I have read, our cyber security efforts in governmental, military, and private enterprises has been, or is being, ramped up to combat these activities.
So, what is the Russian meddling you are talking about?
It's hard to talk about why the President isn't doing something about something, without knowing what that something is.
GAHey GA, I was speaking about the known meddling, internet propaganda, and the like. Trump hasn't made the prevention of such a priority before the next elections in 2018. There is a noticeable lack of effort on his part to acknowledge it happened at all.
If nothing else, this is making him appear guilty of colluding with the Russians when any past POTUS would be on the attack against them for simply trying.I am glad to hear that Randy. I think that would be a good discussion.
I have read about some of the identified pro-Russian efforts - and some of the Google and Facebook measures to combat them. My first thoughts concerned censorship. I have heard tales, (and my shallow knowledge regards them as no more than tales), of Google, Facebook and Twitter filtering.of some types of pro-Russian publications. And in Google's case, some search results censoring.
Of course killing bot publishments makes easy sense, but I must wonder how any other banning or censoring could pass legal muster. For instance, and a wide instance I hope it is... what if I truly believed some U.S. activity was bad for my nation, and some Russian perspective was the correct way to address it. Should I be banned from publishing a website about it, or have Google decide not to show my site in search listings?
What about those full-page political newspaper ads paid for by private citizens, (or groups)? Would a group of Russians be barred from buying one? A group of Russian U.S. citizens?
See where I am going with this... just what would you expect our president do?
GAMay I offer a suggestion of what Trump could do? Have intelligence and internet experts, and other relevant experts, work together to identity ways to protect us from foreign interference while also protecting our freedoms. I don't have the expertise to evaluate and identify exactly what should be done. That is why we should let experts from all relevant fields work together to figure it out and make recommendations.
All that said, the question was, why hasn't Trump done anything to prevent future meddling, not what should he do.PrettyPanther, you are right about the OP's question, but how can you expect an answer without knowing what the meddling is that the Op mentions?
Even without the fanfare of some public proclamation, I would be very surprised if such actions as you mention haven't been pursued since the very first hint of "meddling."
Would a JFK-type "To the Moon" speech do the job for the OP's question?
GA
Smarter, and more internet savvy people than I, have suggested there's much we can do to prevent or somehow expose the Russian propaganda. I certainly do not wish we simply ignore the attacks, do you?
Of course I don't want to ignore the issue Randy. But I don't want a broad brush censorship solution either.
As I mentioned to PrettyPanther, and relative to what those savvy internet folks you refer to say - I expect that such actions are already being taken. And I don't think it takes a Presidential proclamation to legitimize those security functions.
I don't think either of us can know what actions have or haven't been taken. I think some folks just want a speech or proclamation for the purposes of assurance.
GAOkay, can you imagine a former president going against his Intel agencies or being sorry for suggesting "Russia probably had something to do with it" in a previous interview, GA? I realize you're trying to be objective in most of these discussions, but I think you're going above and beyond the call of duty on this one.
Randy, It would only be "beyond the call..." if you thought my comments were in defense of Pres. Trump. They weren't.
GATen - Twenty Million Dollars =Collusion Evidence ----0%
No wonder the left doesn't want a tax cut ? That might end the waste in government spending .
We all know that the left actually IS government waste !I think you might have missed your turn ahorseback. The exit to the Mueller and collusion threads was two keystrokes back. This one is about "meddling" security measures. But I can understand your confusion - they both feature Pres. trump.
GA
That would be odd for you GA, because you never take up for Trump.
Oh no Mr. Bill!
I can't tell! Was that sarcasm, or a testament to my sterling reputation as an objective observer, (like one of Heinlein's 1st Witnesses?)
Hmm... I can't decide whether to go with Dostoevsky's thought, or to stick with my perception that Dana Perino nails it best.
GAI don't use them Randy, (well, I did use one once, but only once - regarding pyshicskinner's "dumbfuckery"). So I don't know what they mean. And I was too lazy to look it up.
GA
Okay, you can "suspect" or even "assume" actions are already being taken Maybe they are, but Trump has made it clear he believes Putin when he says Russia did not meddle in our election. He also continues to malign and disparage his own intelligence agencies
What would make me happy? A serious speech by Trump acknowledging that his intelligence agencies uncovered the meddling, describing its scope (to the extent he can given security considerations), and outlining a plan to protect us from future meddling (again, to the extent he can).
That would make me happy.PrettyPanther,. I think that would make quite a few people happy. Myself included.
Just because I don't believe our cyber security folks are sitting on their hands waiting for a presidential directive, or that I don't believe there is a presidential solution to my censorship concerns regarding dealing with Randy's defined meddling, doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome, or think it a proper reaction to expect, a word from our president that indicated he recognizes the problem.
GAI might be going out on a shaky limb here, but I think we are in agreement.
Sorta? Kinda?
Well... maybe "sorta, kinda," but I wouldn't be reaching for a high-5 just yet. I don't think we are on the same page - yet - regarding exactly what Russian meddling occurred, and what meddling you are expecting Pres. Trump to address.
GA
Could it be in the definition of "meddling"? I ask because it took me a long time to understand that the TDS crowd included advertisements, comments and such as "meddling". I assumed it meant voter fraud, improper vote counting as such, but it has come clear that that isn't even on the menu. Just Russian (any Russian) comments about any part of the election that insinuated, however slightly, that Trump would make a better president.
Have you seen any of these comments, Dan? Are they all so innocuous as you think? So you don't think Russian propaganda directed by Putin himself on the net is bad for our country or elections? Get real, dude!
Somebody needs to get real, all right, if they think they can control speech from other countries. Or are you proposing government censorship of what we can see on the web?
I'm real enough to at least attempt answering a question, Dan.
And no, I'm not suggesting censorship of anything not harmful to our democracy, Dan. But propaganda from our main adversary is not acceptable and should be quelled as best it can be. Or are you in favor of Russian lies to sway our elections?Isn't that how it begins? Everything is OK...except what I deem unacceptable and will therefore censor from the people?
Let the book burnings begin!
Randy, I said before that the "cure" is going to be worse than the "crime" in this case, and you are making it extremely obvious that the statement is true. I said that I would likely prefer Russian propaganda to be available to having government censorship of the WWW and I would. Going a step further, I really believe you would too if you would just off your high horse about demonizing anything to do with Donald Trump, step back and look at the question with fresh, unbiased eyes.Unbiased eyes? That's rich coming from you, Dan. We already have censorship in many forms in this country. The aforementioned kiddie porn is simply one example. It seems you simply want to throw up your hands and let Russian meddling continue. You would have been pissed off if Russia intervened on Hillary's behalf and I would as well. We may as well not have elections if nothing is done. Does King Donald sound good to you?
But you're not alone as many Trump fans have told me basically the same thing you did. " I'm glad if Russia did meddle in our election if it meant Hillary lost," What patriots they are!But I didn't say that, except as tongue-in-cheek, and have made that clear. I don't like the Russian (or any other govt., including our friends) propaganda machine operating in our elections.
I just don't see any possibility at all of even slowing it down, not when it's on the web, without massive censorship. And censorship that leaves the arena of objectionable information (like kiddie porn) and goes into just who can and who cannot post material that Americans will be allowed to see. For instance, you can look at whatever is posted on a Russian web site - this will not be possible should you desire to end Russian "interference", for who will determine just what is interference and what is acceptable information for the dumb Americans to see? And how will you check, every hour or minute, for new information that might be politically based? The same must go for all of the some 200 nations in the world; Americans will not be allowed to view any website from any foreign country.So you're saying it's impossible to filter unwanted political propaganda from the net without censoring everything else? I don't believe it, because if we can't, we're doomed to fall to Russia, Comrade Dan.
Lol, I think you are intentionally misrepresenting what is commonly considered to be "meddling" to make it sound more trivial than it is. My hope is that when the investigation is complete we will have a clear picture of exactly what the Russians did.
That's what I said. It took some time for me to realize it really was trivial comments and conversation by Russian citizens rather than actual "fixing". I had visions of the KGB manning voting stations with baseball bats, like was done in battles of unionization, not some facebook ad that may have originated in Russia somewhere.
But I'm not sure at all just how you and the rest think we're going to stop Russia from placing ads or comments on the world wide web.They can educate people like yourself who don't understand what meddling is, for one thing, Dan. You guys see fake news anywhere that doesn't praise Trump or say anything against him. I watch Fox News for humor and cons watch it for gospel.
How to contain it is a question for the experts, doncha think?
Since I see a sizeable number of my friends and family sharing dubious "news" on Facebook, I have very little doubt that a misinformation campaign coordinated by a foreign government could influence a significant number of voters. That doesn't sit well with me and I believe it is important enough and significant enough to take steps to prevent it from happening as best we can without curtailing our own freedoms to say, believe, and share stupid things on the internet."Since I see a sizeable number of my friends and family sharing dubious "news" on Facebook, I have very little doubt that a misinformation campaign coordinated by a foreign government could influence a significant number of voters."
I agree. What I don't really understand is why such dubious information is worse when it comes from a foreign country. Because we just assume what is good for them is bad for us? Do we assume that all foreign countries hate us and will do whatever they can to hurt us, including hurting themselves? Are we using Russia as a bogeyman like J Edgar did to gain political strength? Is it all just a political game, with the FBI no more than another pawn in the hands of entrenched politicians?
And then there is the question of hypocrisy...it's a terrible thing when another country, at least if it's Russia, does it to us but a good thing when we do it to them. Plus we're completely ignoring the thousands of posts from foreign citizens telling us what a terrible person Trump is - that's OK, I guess. Because it helped a Democrat rather than a Republican?You honestly can't see a major difference between a coordinated effort by a foreign government to influence an election, and individual citizens of any country exercising their right to state an opinion on the internet?
As for any U.S. efforts to affect another country's election,you will not find any support from me, so I don't see where you see the hypocrisy, unless you're speaking of someone else.Like I said PP, the right need more education as to what is going on in the world, not being told what to think by Fox News opinion people like Hannity. He's an ex-carpenter who isn't a journalist, but some people on the right don't know the difference between opinion and facts.
That foreign government has more resources. The foreign citizen, however, could be a major corporation with more resources than some countries. Either way it does seem as if you're assuming that Americans are too stupid to root out truth (you're probably right) and that anyone from outside our borders is automatically trying to do us harm even though they are agreeing with half the population.
Does that make sense to you? That the UK agrees with half our people, but it is the end of the world if they take out ads stating that opinion? Does it make sense that a person may express an opinion on the internet but a government cannot (keeping in mind that our government does it every day)?
Truly, this seems more like an emotional reaction without substance. You can't stop it, without doing far more damage than the "meddling" did. You say it's a terrible thing as you do it yourself, and promote others to do it. It's only terrible when they do it, apparently, and we must protect our stupid people from such foul deeds while we subvert other nations elections, with governmental, corporate and individual opinions and comments. I have a hard time agreeing and supporting this thinking.You put a bunch of words in my mouth, again. I don't have time to answer as I am leaving to play Mrs. Santa at our community Christmas evet. A little fun!
Catch you later!
" You can't stop it, without doing far more damage than the "meddling" did."
I wonder what qualifies you to make this statement, Dan. Or are you simply another opinion guy like others on this thread. I hope not.Explain, please, how you will stop anyone from posting whatever they want to on the net, and do it without censoring anything. Then explain how you would do it, coming from an American computer on American soil, once more without censorship.
There is zero indication that the so-called meddling, the "collusion" (that the FBI tonight declined to confirm on tonights news) had any effect whatsoever on the election. Think that would remain true if government began censoring what could be put on the web? Because I surely don't, and all the desire in the world to get rid of demon spawned Donald Trump won't change that.
But if it had tipped the election, well, then that would have been doing the US a giant favor.Apparently you know everything about the internet, Dan. I'd wager before there were airplanes you'd think flying was impossible. I don't know a lot about computers or the internet, but my son is an IT for the State Labor Department. From what he tells me, there are ways to patrol the net for suspicious and illegal activity. And our government can do so with enough support from those who actually care if the Russians meddle in our elections.
And your last sentence shows how much you care if our elections are swayed by our main adversary. Sad!Don't want to address the real issue, eh? As in how to censor the web without censoring the web? That IS the thrust of my entire comment, not the nuts and bolts of how to accomplish it electronically, physically or financially - it was how to censor without censoring.
Well, I don't blame you - it is an obvious impossibility, which means you have to be for govt. censorship in order to keep Americans from reading what is posted there and only an idiot wants to see that happen. Better that we have J Edgar back, or even Hillary.
Sorry, but our "main adversary" is not Russia. It isn't even China or N. Korea. It is the socialists of America who desire and demand a socialistic state of as near total control as possible. We are at a crossroads where we either decide to join Greece and the other failed states desiring massive socialism, with leaders interested solely in their own power and wealth and stagnation for the country, or we climb back out of it, starting with a transformation of our own government leadership. The leadership that we so foolishly allowed to become the corrupt royalty, the "political priesthood" of the country. But I will openly admit the last sentence was more in the nature of a sharp poke with a stick than anything else. If you can't take it with a grin and a wave of acknowledgement, don't dish it out.What do think about kiddie porn, Dan? Should that be censored?
And what qualifications do YOU have to give an opinion on what could be done to safeguard the net? Computer programmer, IT, program designer, or building contractor? Back atcha!Good point. Yes, although I haven't the faintest how to censor something coming in from China. On the other hand kid porn is already illegal and if caught with it you will do time - is that the only form of "censorship" we can accomplish without diving headfirst down that slippery path?
Don't need to be a programmer to work with morals. I do believe I said it isn't about the nuts and bolts or the "how"; it's about the results.
"That foreign government has more resources. The foreign citizen, however, could be a major corporation with more resources than some countries. Either way it does seem as if you're assuming that Americans are too stupid to root out truth (you're probably right) and that anyone from outside our borders is automatically trying to do us harm even though they are agreeing with half the population."
I've been operating under the assumption that you know that it is illegal for foreign nationals to donate or make expenditures in a U.S. election. That includes paying for advertising. Maybe you are not aware? Similarly, it is illegal for a foreign government to interfere in our elections. So, are you comfortable with Trump not acknowledging or addressing these crimes?
"Does that make sense to you? That the UK agrees with half our people, but it is the end of the world if they take out ads stating that opinion? Does it make sense that a person may express an opinion on the internet but a government cannot (keeping in mind that our government does it every day)?" Yes, it makes sense and I've already explained why. It is against the law for a foreign national or foreign government to make expenditures in a U.S. election. It is perfectly acceptable for an individual citizen of any country to express an opinion on the internet.
"Truly, this seems more like an emotional reaction without substance. You can't stop it, without doing far more damage than the "meddling" did. You say it's a terrible thing as you do it yourself, and promote others to do it. It's only terrible when they do it, apparently, and we must protect our stupid people from such foul deeds while we subvert other nations elections, with governmental, corporate and individual opinions and comments. I have a hard time agreeing and supporting this thinking."
I've never stated it's only terrible when they do it. I've repeatedly stated there is a difference between individual citizens posting their opinions, and a coordinatd effort by a foreign government. How many times do I have to state it before you quit mischaracterising my position? And, the condescension in your "emotional reaction" assessment was not lost on me. Because, you know, your position that our president should ignore a coordinated and wide-ranging effort by a foreign government to interfere in our election is entirety dispassionate and logical. Uh huh."That includes paying for advertising. Maybe you are not aware?"
I would be interested in seeing the law that forbids purchasing of advertising by a foreign government. Doubly so when that "advertising" is nothing but a statement on the web, without any attempt to sell anything at all - just a comment on an event.
" Yes, it makes sense and I've already explained why. It is against the law for a foreign national or foreign government to make expenditures in a U.S. election. It is perfectly acceptable for an individual citizen of any country to express an opinion on the internet."
Again, I would surely like to see a law stating that a foreign government cannot express an opinion on the web, even on an American owned website, but foreign citizens can. While you're looking for it you might consider just how we can determine which opinions are from citizens and which are from governments (is there even a difference in some countries?)
"How many times do I have to state it before you quit mischaracterising my position?"
Sorry - poorly worded. The intent was to discuss our (the United States of America) meddling in other countrie's elections while decrying their efforts at doing the same. PP, there is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that every country (capable of it) does this - do you disagree? In addition, I actually doubt that you can provide a link to the second request, showing a government may not express an opinion but a citizen of the country can."In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:
Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States; "
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/Here is a more detailed analysis specific to social media.
Did the Russian company break election law by financing the ads, which Facebook traced back to a Russian “troll farm” with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda?
It depends.
The law is clear that foreign nationals and foreign corporations are prohibited from making contributions or spending money to influence a federal, state or local election in the United States. The ban includes independent expenditures made in connection with an election.
But whether the Russian company broke the law by running ads on Facebook comes down to two big questions: What was in the content of the ads, and did a U.S. campaign assist the company in placing the ads.
If the Facebook ads were overtly political — that is to say, they advocated the election or defeat of a specific candidate — then they would violate the ban on foreign national spending, legal experts said.
But if they were vaguer appeals, it's less clear cut.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine. “If they had ads that just were making statements about immigration and gay marriage and there was no mention of a candidate,” they would not meet the FEC's definition of an independent expenditure, he said.
However, Russian-financed ads could have still run afoul of election law if they were placed on Facebook or targeted at certain voters in coordination with a campaign — one of the central questions of the ongoing Russia probes. In that scenario, the ads would not have to explicitly advocate for a candidate to be illegal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … 56a8756ecbI hope you don't mind if I jump back in Prettypnther, but now that the discussion has gotten a little more specific - there might be room for me.
Regarding your posted "legal" parameters, I found this list from the New York Times that shows the "Russian sponsored" ads purchased on facebook; 2016 Russian Facebook ads
Take a look to see how many you think would easily fit your listed parameters.
I think they illustrate the point that almost any effort demanded by the posters on this thread would have a tough time not being just an effort of censorship - for all of us.
If these ads are tough to fit into those legal parameters, just imagine how hard it would be to categorize those personal and blog postings.
I don't think any of us - that seem to oppose censorship - are denying a Russian effort - specifically regarding the Net and Social Media meddling, but, speaking for myself, I just don't see a political or legal solution that wouldn't equate to that old saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You guys are giving poor ol' Wilderness a beating, but from my perspective his only sin is being more blunt than I am.
Take his challenge. Address this Russian Social Media ads meddling, and see if you can think of a solution that wouldn't amount to broad-brush censorship - for all of us.
I understand the feeling that, 'it just ain't right, somebody oughta do something about it', but no matter how loud some might yell for it, you just can't legislate protection against gullibility.
GAGA, as I have said more than once, I leave it to the,experts to offer solutions. I am not in favor of solutions that would censor U.S. citizens or even foreign citizens who are merely posting opinions. Just because current law is not clear with regard to, for example, Russian company troll farms, there is no reason to believe we can't tinker with the laws to make such activity illegal. Also, it is reasonable to believe that cooperation between social media companies and intelligence agencies could result in the development of sophisticated methods for curtailing future meddling. All I expect is that our president acknowledge the meddling occurred and take serious and comprehensive action to curtail it in the future . This repeated insistence that I or Randy come up with a solution is puzzling. I don't understand why you think that is important. As long as we agree that we don't want solutions that would curtail our freedoms, what's the problem with us clearly stating we favor the experts trying to find ways to curtail future meddling??
Couldn't have said it better PP, none of us on this thread are network savvy enough to propose a solution, but there's no evidence one isn't possible.
You and Randy both are confusing asking for a solution to mean find out how to prevent Russia or Russians from putting opinions or comments on FB or other American social media.
This could be done - just make it very expensive to FB to post anything out of Russia and put them out of business when Russia goes through 10 proxies, hiding their identity beyond the ability of FB to find. Not particularly difficult and Russia would quite possibly be happy to put a major American corporation out of business.
But it still leaves the problem of Americans reading propaganda on Russian web sites, hosted on Russian servers. Or Russian web sites hosted on servers in Germany, France, the UK or anywhere else in the world. This is a problem of a completely different nature and cannot be solved without denying Americans the ability to view Russian sites in total. Or those from anywhere in the world, as Russia (or any other nation) is quite capable of setting up websites anywhere and everywhere on earth. Other nations deny their citizens to access foreign web sites: it is not an option I would care to see America take.Of course, if you can't imagine a way to do it, it cannot but done, right?
I give. You're still insisting that we can deny our people the right to view foreign sites, but it isn't censorship somehow. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes censorship and how damaging it is to a country founded on freedom.
I suppose it "could." Can you imagine that a solution might be found that "could" simply flag a website for Americans as a foreign-made fake news site so that viewers "could" then click "View Anyway" or leave?
I'm not missing the point. The original question was why is Trump not doing anything about Russian meddling. Your answer seems to be that nothing could be done that wouldn't also censor what Americans could view on the internet. I don't know how you know that, given that you are not an expert on the matter.
Again, all I want is for our president to acknowledge Russian meddling occurred, then ensure we are doing all we can to minimize future influence. I hardly think that is a radical position."Can you imagine that a solution might be found that "could" simply flag a website for Americans as a foreign-made fake news site so that viewers "could" then click "View Anyway" or leave?"
LOL Given that any news site with a different bias than what the reader wants to hear is obviously "fake news", no I can't. Can you? And if we could define it in a manner acceptable to everyone, a manner that is immediately obvious, would it satisfy you if people could read that Russian propaganda anyway? In addition, given that some of the best web sites on the planet cannot always find a host, it is more than difficult for me to imagine that a nation with the resources of Russia can't design one faking an American site well enough to require months to find out just what and where it is.
"Again, all I want is for our president to acknowledge Russian meddling occurred, then ensure we are doing all we can to minimize future influence."
Well, it might be tough to minimize the influence less than it already is; we can't show that there were any results from it. Or we could require that every other (tenth, hundredth, thousandth, whatever) ISP account not be allowed to view foreign sites. Whatever number you figure is minimal enough.I think we've beaten this to death. Impasse. I threw that out because you, without any expertise, insist that steps cannot be taken to minimize future Russian influence in our election without curtailing our freedoms.
Similarly, I, without any expertise, can at least hold out for the possibility that experts could develop some sophisticated methods for minimizing interference.
Impasse.Future Russian (or any other nation) influence in our election via the internet. With the addition of those last three words, yes that is my position. You want to stop actual, physical interference, we can do that. You want to stop paper propaganda, we can come close. You want to stop Russian speeches on American soil, we can come close.
But we cannot stop free interchange of ideas on the web without massive censorship by government.
Anyone ever concider NOT getting their official vetting info off from Face Book to begin with ?
A nine year old could have figured that Face Book would print anything .
Now Puttie Baby owns F-B , there's a real heart-breaker ?
I understand your closing point PrettyPanther, and I suppose my asking what solutions you might propose is a rhetorical request, but, the purpose is to emphasize what you are asking protection from - speech.
For instance; I think it took a directed investigative effort, and a bit of time to discover the origins of the Russian ad purchases. Would a solution to this now involve placing the responsibility for this type of fiscal research on every publisher before they could accept any ad purchases? Would this be similar to the IRS's forensic accounting efforts to unravel ownership through multiple levels of shell companies? After all, there is nothing to stop that Russian troll farm from establishing a U.S. company - a shell company, to buy the ads.
I do believe our experts can come up with some type of software solution that could identify known Russian sources, and points of origin - perhaps similar to how our anti-virus programs work, but that wouldn't stop new entities until after they were identified. A vicious circle that is really no solution at all. So we would be right back to holding publishers accountable. I can easily see a background check, license, and bonding as ad purchase requirements - if that became the case. Again, no solution at all.
GAHey GA, it's been reported we have much better internet experts than Russia. It's also been reported our guys can infect any Russian site with a virus which is almost impossible to remove easily. I don't see why our guys cannot fight Russia's meddling in this manner. What do you and Comrade Dan, internet experts extraordinaire, think about this method of punishing the culprits?
So the Russian agent goes to France and sets up his web site there. Or any other location in the world. Or he sits at home with proxy server in Switzerland. You will have to shut down the rest of the world, or at least prevent American access to any foreign server. For the life of me I cannot understand what is so bloody difficult to understand about that. Do you think the digital information on a server HD carries Russian fingerprints or DNA?
What experience have you with internet filters, Dan? Have you ever tried to do anything on a computer except opine?
I give. Anybody at all that thinks a Russian living in and operating a web site in France can be determined to be a Russian government operative via the use of a "filter" is beyond any help I might offer. *slaps floor* and shouts "UNCLE! UNCLE!".
Internet experts extraordinaire? Come on Randy, at least get our fields of expertise right. My specialty is non-vertical rotational manipulation detection. Comrade Dan will have to tell you about his, but I suspect it has something to do with minimum tolerance calibrations relative to data production outlets.
Regarding your "our guys..." solution... Wouldn't that be a great announcement for the President to make.
Think about that thought for a minute... can you see how far off-track you've gone from the point of the OP? And how incorrectly you have interpreted our responses?
GA
Okay, there is no solution at all. Might as well leave our doors unlocked and the key to the sliquor cabinet on the kitchen counter. Wouldn't want to inadvertently keep Aunt Martha from walking in and grabbing a shot of vodka masquerading as gin.
Pardon my snark, but I really have nothing more to add. Challenges exist, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to mitigate against therm.
That response makes the Clinton's guilty of treason doesn't it ?
Horse, I'll give this a try and I will continue the conversation if you can stay on topic and offer a substantive reply.
I am not aware of how the Clintons would be guilty of treason. Can you tell me specifically what they have done in relation to this topic that could qualify as treason? Keep in mind, I will need more than just your opinion for your accusation to be credible.
PP, that's crazy! It is against the law for a British citizen to buy political ads for a US election...but without any method of enforcing it. We can't sue a Brit for paying for either an ad on US soil or their own. And while it's illegal for the Brit to buy, there is no mention of it being illegal for a US corporation to accept money from a Brit for their ad. In addition, it's going to be very, very tough to prove if something is illegal at all if the Brit words it with even a small amount of care! The Russian ads you're so concerned about did not, that I saw, advocate voting one way or the other - merely gave "information" a reader might find "useful" in making up their mind.
Then we get to the PAC arrangments, where nearly anything (a speech by a Russian) is quite legal...as long as no money changes hands. All volunteer, in other words, by someone earning a salary from the Russian government. That's just as silly!
GA Anderson,
5 days ago you ended your post saying: See where I am going with this... just what would you expect our president do?
We have an answer already. MSNBC'S host Chris Mathews interviewing
Jon Heilemann said that the Trump people are saying that FBI, the press corp, anybody, the courts- that everybody is trying to overthrow the republic to get rid of the results of the 2016 election. Essentially that the public is trying to have a coup against him. Jon Heilmann says that this is dangerous talk that leads to stirring up violence. Here is the link: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-john … dangerous/Hi there skyfallingyet,
My closing question; as you quoted, was directed to the demands that Pres. Trump do something about the Russian Social Media postings,
Your link doesn't seem to address that point.
GA
Yeah, makes you wonder why the previous president did nothing when he was warned about it in 2014.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ … nce-241547And he didn't get personally warned like Trump did from the previous POTUS.
Randy - First you are assuming our Homeland Security as well as the FBI are not doing anything about hacking. Do you think either organization is doing nothing ? Do you believe either would announce what they are doing to prevent hacking? I am sure you are aware hacking has been going on for many years. We hack other nations... "I cannot imagine any past POTUS ignoring this threat to our country." Can you imagine why Obama did nothing or Bush? I am sure both did what could be done, as Trump is doing.
It is clear that Hacking is a big problem. I problem that will not be easy to solve. It has not in any way been proved that Russian hacking affected the vote.Yes, it's clear they put out social media posts. But it is also clear that the Clinton's ran a very dirty campaign. I give the American people credit for seeing through both. I voted for Trump,for one reason, his agenda. Clinton had no agenda....Trump doesn't trust the agencies you mentioned, Shar. He's said the FBI was in tatters and doesn't believe what they are telling him. He gets angry if anyone even mentions the hacking during his daily briefing so his staff puts the report in writing so it won't be brought up orally. You can't have it both ways, either he believes the news is fake or he already knows the truth himself.
Obstructionists don't know Hacking from Influencing , Or they'd get a clue .
Hi Randy, He has made it very clear that he believes there are great problems with the FBI. have you been following the reports of clear bias with some of the agents? It very much appears there are problems within the FBI. I have followed the different posts on Gov.org in regards to arrests on Russian hackers, in the past few months there has been two. This leads me to believe or hope Homeland Security and the FBI continue to do their best. Trump has made many statement in regards to not "letting the other guy know hat we are doing". It is very clear he does not feel it in our best interest to tell the other guys what we are doing. He certainly knows much more than we do about what is happening, as well as what id being done.
As I stated Shar, Trump is giving mixed messages. He criticized the FBI on the way to Quantico and praised them at the speech. Mueller got rid of the offending agent when he heard about the emails. And besides that, most of the agents are republican, as is Mueller himself. Perhaps we need to have more democrats in the Mueller investigation and you wouldn't complain about that either, eh?
Actually it has been well published that Mulliers team are mostly made up of Dem's, Dem's that donated to Hillary's campaign? I don't think it fair to count them bias. The one agent that was demoted certainly was a bad apple. In regards to Trump's comments on the FBI, with all the past weeks news on how they handled the Clinton email case. It's clear there is a problem within the FBI, starting with "Comey" on down. This is the mess Trump has been referring to. He has stated hi support for th FBI in resent weeks, but did bad mouth the job of some. I think Mullier is doing is job, his reputation proceeds him. I will trust he will be fair. I await his outcome.
Give me a link to the political makeup of Mueller's team, Shar. If you have one, that is.
Hi Randy, Business Insider is a good source, and has an article that gives good history of the Muller team. All fourteen are Dem's and many actually donated to the Democratic party for Obama and Clinton. As I stated, I don;t believe this team are all bias. But it does appear they could be due to being long time Democrats. It's a bit odd that there are non Republicans on his team? I again will reiterate, I feel Muller"s reputation is good, and I am willing at this point to accept what he comes up with. I have done a lot of research into Muller's team, some are very political, One worked for the Clinton Foundation. One has been life long friends with the Clinton's. You can see some would tend to see bias. My own feeling is that this investigation is further dividing the country, and at the end of it all many won't be happy one way or the other. If the result show nothing connecting Trump to the Russians, the Dem's will not accept it. On he other hand if the opposite ha[pens, and there is evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, many Rep won't except it... Due to feeling the investigation showed bias. I feel the sooner this is over the better one way or the other.
Here is the link you requested. http://www.businessinsider.com/lawyers- … -dreeben-1Sharlee , of what I've read, any investigative group of sixteen lawyers that has individually donated $63,000 to Dems and only $2,700 to Republicans and has worked on Clinton 's team is already polluted !
Fire them all Trump.Thanks for the link, Shar. Although it didn't really go into why this group is against Trump as you claimed.
Trump's constant phone calls every week to Putin are collusion with a known US adversary. He has never spoken to any other world leader as often. Why?
The US cannot condone the murders, assassins and poisonings Putin ordered on 21 journalists, nor his marching in Chechin territory to take control of it like he is doing in the Ukraine.
When Putin rigged his own election, Russians, always the revolutionaries in their own history, photographed piles of their ballots hidden in polling place bathrooms, ballots shoved into ballot boxes before polls opened or polling clerks using erasable pens to change ballots, all caught on cell phone cameras that went viral.
Putin blamed Hillary and Obama for outing him rigging his election. Their only statement back in 2012 was what at least 7 of the last presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have said, "The people deserve to have their voices heard." If you have a problem with that, you condone silencing voters and allowing election rigging to become the ONLY method by which a party in power continues to win?
That is why Trump won't put those sanctions in place on Russia. Neither will the Republicans. They NEED to keep their party in power. They can't do it by popular vote as the 2016 election proved. So they do it by deleting voting districts like in TX, VA and NC or they overlap Dem voters into GOP districts to increase the number of Electoral College votes. The SC is calling that "extreme gerrymandering."
The reality of Trump's collusion with Putin goes back to Trump's deal to build a hotel in Azerbajan with the help of the notorious Russian crime family, the Mammadovs. Trump is a wheeler dealer albeit not very successful at it. He really is "not" the billionaire he claims to be. Ergo his need to pass the tax legislation that will earn him $2 billion a year and make inherited Trump profits tax free to his kids for the next 5 generations.
Is this what the Founding Fathers intended? A Republican Party as guilty as Trump of election meddling with Russian help?You sure can go on with the Russian propaganda , you sure you're not in collusion with Russia ? That's certainly the spook story of the decade .To date ; Not ONE illegal iota of Trump collusion ! But the left already has him convicted . What an alternative reality that you live in .
I disproved all that in one paragraph.
With all of the intelligence that America possesses,wouldn't it be the intelligence communities fault for not intercepting the Russians from meddling with the Election.
When America meddles with other elections like out in Iraq, it is not as big of a story here in the U.S.
This is just cold war propaganda. Back in the 60's America was truly afraid of the Russians and Communism taking over the world. Two of the biggest countries in the world are communists. Usually what starts wars are Land, Money, and Resources... Not elections. I doubt we truly have anything to worry about unless we have a new resource or something that people need.So all of the intel agencies are lying then? If so, then why, and to what end? Do you have anything to support your views?
Which two countries are you referring to, as I hope you don't mean Russia and China as they've changed their views on capitalism in the past few decades, Bill.What Intel agencies say that the Russians manually Interfered in our election , by effecting one vote , other than by B.S. propaganda that the left sucks up like a hoover vacuum cleaner . Where are the Russian altered voting machines ? What election ballots were switched ? Other than supplying those like your alt-left with Face --Book adds and your "Big Bad Wolf" crayon political mentality that is ?
You got Flynn and maybe one more for lying to an FBI interviewer .......ah , that's about it .
Why would he? He won and clearly has no integrity. Its a damn shame it happened but we deserved it all the bad we did installing leaders we wanted decades ago. Nevertheless this hurt
Does Trump do anything or make any policy that isn't self-serving?
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago
0Wow , there's a ton of foreign intelligence going on HERE , don't anyone under fifty read a history book anymore ? The Russian and the western world including America have had ongoing clandestine operations against each other from almost America's beginning , the U.S and the USSR against each other , both countries against other countries , both nations inside each others countries , You guys need to sit down and watch Charlie Wilson's War , you need to review --or begin to learn anything about the Cuban missile crisis , Viet-Nam , Korea , WWII , .........
Are you guys so shallow that your first clue of Russian intervention in clandestine operations against the US is the Obama's / Clinton's and Uranium one ?
A clue , there was an entire world of history before you graduated high school . It didn't all happen because CNN told you Trump lied !
Jees! Shut off your "smart phones " and read a book , people. - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Putin has become the "Big Bad Wolf " only since the Clinton loss And only to an entire and completely uninformed generation of liberal voters .
Interesting that the Clinton's had such deep ties to Putin though ?
Liberals , need to read a history book ! Notice the pro-Trump posters do not address the question of why Trump isn't doing anything to protect our future elections and simply try to distract and blame Obama and the Clintons. Try again. guys!
Perhaps he figures precedent has been set, normal operations are the way to go, at least for the time being, so copies the actions of prior presidents? Isn't that they way of conservatives - no change from past practices?
Yes, I'm certain that's it, Dan. It's not like Trump to do anything differently than past presidents.
Ahorseback, there you go again spouting false information. The Magnitsky Act was put in place back in 2012. That's long before this past election. Putin was the "Big Bad Wolf" for much longer than you care to admit. So when you try to lecture us liberals on history, try and have some accurate information yourself.
I agree with you Valeant, Russia has been a cyber threat for a lot longer than the Obama administration. I recall reading that they created a specific Cyber Operations Division/Directorate - as well funded and prioritized as their entire human espionage divisions - back in 1995.
But I am wondering what point you want to make with the Magnitsky Act reference?
GA
New York Times-Obama lied 18 times in 8 years. Trump lied 103 times in his first 10 months in office.
That was in reference to the claim that Putin has only become the "Big Bad Wolf" since the Clinton loss, as AHorseback claimed.
Got it. And speaking to that same reference of "reading-up on history," I would recommend a Google search about that Russian special Cyber division I mentioned. As I recall, the information was about the Russians making a conscious decision to focus their main "action" efforts in the cyber realm.
That was 20+ years ago. There shouldn't be any surprise that their efforts to effect our elections have matured to the sophistication of the 2016 "meddling" being discussed.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
The Mueller Investigators are comprised of a minimum of seven people who either worked indirectly or directly for the Clinton's campaigns and /Or investigate Trump on his campaign against Hilary .
At the top level of these FBI , DOJ investigators , they are supposed to VOLUNTARILY recuse themselves if the feel a political conflict of interest . As partisan players on the Clinton ---Obama team . Surely they must" feel it "?Wrong !
Trump , Fire Mueller now ! - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
I'd be happy if for the price of ten or fifteen million dollars someone could say more than Mueller's ?
"This guy lied to me ."
Obstructionists Dreamers Unite ! Ten million dollars for one lie is politically profitable.
No wonder liberals can't fiscally run anything . Some unrealistic Trump fans do not understand investigations or how they work. It's not smart for an investigator to inform criminals about the case while it's being developed. Of course, Trump fans for the most part don't understand legal issues or the law.
It is the entire personality of Trump obstructionists and your media to simply insinuate , false accuse , adjudicate by media broadcast , conduct trial by popular wish , Especially given the general political immaturity and ideological evolution by age .
I'm just glad that as our political age increases so do the majority of people evolve to conservative thought .
That say's it all .
False would be spending the money and getting no convictions, which is what happens when conservatives run investigations against democrats.
And again with the immaturity issue, while your side argues that Soros bussed 20,000 black people in to Alabama from Mississippi to help defeat Moore. Yeah, that's pretty mature.- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
How shallow these politic obstructionist's , Do any of you not realize that the presidents position , BY DESIGN , isn't well enough insulated from ideological meddling as to place him so far above the operators of this supposed collusion and election "meddling " .
AND SO the resulting impeachment possibilities.
Sometimes I think each of these reasons for obstruction are surely originated by high school lightweights , from Nixon's Watergate , Clinton's perjury , sexual tryst's and escapades , Obama's corruption in the State dept. , IRS , DOJ....etc.?, How high do you on the left really believe these charges will reach towards Trump , his shadow?
So far Flynn ? oh wow .............dream on. "Oh lordy..." (ala Comey) - It just dawned on me.
You don't suppose folks are looking for a 2017-modified version of a Sedition Act do you?
GA- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
The absurdity of these threads is that if , IF The US did something about ANY foreign influence over US 's internal political policies , elections , media output , The arsenal of atom bombs would have been dropped and depleted how many times since the first ones ? England , France , Russia , China , Japan ...........its very sophomoric politically to assume that Russian meddling is all that has happened .
Of course , Its just one more handful of crap thrown at the Trump Wall to see if anything .......................God ! Please Let anything ......Sooommmeeethhhiingg Stick !
Do I smell the scent of liberal desperation ? Chris Wray has donated over $50,000 to GOP campaigns. Does this mean he should be fired as Director of the FBI? Are you saying those that donate to campaigns can no longer set aside their politics to do their jobs? Or should someone of Mexican heritage no be allowed to try cases involving race? Because I thought we've gone down this discriminatory road before and it didn't end well for Trump supporters.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Of sixteen lawyers , 13 have donated , supported , worked for Clinton ,supported democratic causes or are voting democrats ?
per......American Thinker.
Fire them Trump. I'm simply drawing a comparison that you seem to feel that only those who support Trump, or look like Trump, can adequately sit in judgment of him and his campaign's actions. Which makes no sense at all.
Especially since every other independent counsel has come from the opposite party to those being investigated. But since it's Trump, it must be bias if some of the lawyers are democrats.
Your partisan outrage, even though history is not on your side here, is laughable.And your lack of political knowledge and integrity is laughable , would you have a convicted bank robber investigate a bank president for crimes ?
By your reasoning ; Why don't we just let democrats investigate Trump , republicans investigate Hilary ? Wouldn't that make sense ?Ha! I suppose only Trump fans should investigate him. What a joke some of these posters are!
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Sharlee ,You must be nice , we are still apparently dealing with Hilary guilters , they become quite sensitive at Trump defenders , after all apparently ,to them , we all have orange hair .
You're defending the guy who endorsed a likely child molester and have the nerve to mention the word integrity. That's rich.
The hypocrisy of that statement must elude you. If he was so interested in waiting for evidence, he would let the Mueller investigation play itself out. You don't even see how rose-colored your own statements are. Wait with the child molester, pull the trigger on the election investigation.
There is no Evidence of either's charges to date just the corruption of both investigations . Election , nothing ,Moore allegations only ...........All the Mueller investigation has shown so far is HOW corrupted the agents are ?
The hypocrisy is yours not mine.
Corrupted for having an opinion on what an idiot Trump is, or corrupted because they are from a different political party. This country is becoming a fascist nation if only those from the ruling party are believed to be credible.
How about this :
Right as we speak a second special council is being advised by senate oversight to investigate and move on the Strok e-mails , ... Now HE was instrumental with Comey in watering down and "adjusting " the whole Hilary e mail scandal to a "action " instead of a investigation , at the same time while WITH the Obama administration conspiring with Obama administration AND the Hilary Campaign AGAINST--- Trumps campaign .
Can you not see where your party corruption is headed ?
Your "credible and corrupted ruling party " was Obama / Clinton , Comey , Strok etc.......
Watch what happens now.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Prediction ; the Trump people ARE being investigated for Russian collusion ? Shortly however the investigation will be expanded to include ALL collusion .
-Obama
-Clinton
-Comey
-Strok and asst. girlfriends ...........
This was one active Obama administration AGAINST a legitimate political campaign .
Treason. Once again, in today's speech DT failed to mention the Russian meddling--which was mentioned in the documents--in our elections. Why is he so afraid of condemning Putin as all of our intelligent agencies know Putin is behind these cyber attacks? CIA operatives already have recorded orders from Putin himself during the online campaign to discredit Hillary and to help Trump win.
Why is he avoiding confronting Putin? Perhaps it's because he admires Putin as being wealthier and more powerful than he. Not to mention, Putin can simply kill anyone who criticizes him. This seems like it would appeal to The Don and his adherents.
On the other hand, it may be due to a certain hold Putin has on Trump. Robert Mueller is looking at certain loans in Europe taken out by Trump, so we'll see.Those that are so politically shallow understand little about the diplomacy that likely goes on especially behind closed doors . Admit it , You don't know what he's told the Russians
Kind of leaves the most successful diplomacy to real leaders. Not social workers like Obama.
Because it's utterly puerile, made-up nonsense. Here you go: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-1 … nce-policy
You know when Mueller IS done , there had better be some serious a$$ kicking going on with the disastrous Obama -Mao regime , Every corruption known to politics in the last five decades lay in that administration , from one end of his deptartments to another . Lois Lerner , Loretta Lynch , Eric Holder , The Emanual's ,The Podesta's , Hilary , where does it end ?
I think Muellers people are at least as corrupted , but I also believe there is always hope . Collusion ? The Obama regime would make the Russian Mafia look a like girl scouts jamboree .
I believe Trump will be exonerated .Go ahead and believe these nonsense sites and Faux News, BH!
As my grandmother used to say, "It'll all come out in the wash."
Did you even read the manifesto on the site you linked? Try again with a site not anonymous in nature or simply keep the crappy websites to yourself. It's your choice whether to be considered taken seriously.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Trump and Putin and Face - Book , And the left is now making this an "international incident " , Somebody bring out the missiles , I am incredibly impressed with that , it is no wonder that the left is in such a political disarray in their DNC , house seats losses , party disassociation . leadership loss.
I just may switch to liberal voting .............. Except that it was an emergency manager appointed by GOP Governor Rick Snyder who made the decision to change the city's water supply to the Flint River.
Governors do not control local politics and water systems and you know that , lousy spending gluts , antiquated democratic leadership does .
Good example of out of control cities ? For the third time THIS WEEK human organs were found in the Detroit sewage treatment plant waters , Is that then the distant Rep. Governors fault or the local Democratic" leadership's "?
Silence ?<snipped> Dems, the left, liberals, blah blah blah. <snipped> How's that for silence? LoL!
Not silent, just busy basking in the sun in Florida. Let me come back to you with some facts.
The person who decided to use the river as a water source was one of a succession of emergency managers in Flint, Darnell Earley. Earley was appointed by Snyder under a controversial law that allows the governor to install managers whose power trumps that of elected officials.
For nearly 50 years, the city bought its water from Detroit, which pumped it out of Lake Huron. But in 2013, the city voted to join a new pipeline being built to the lake, prompting Detroit to cancel its agreement. Rather than agree to a new short-term contract with Detroit, Earley decided to use the river that runs through the heart of the cash-strapped city. The state treasurer signed off on the move.
The switch has been described as an effort to save money, but Flint’s water system hadn’t been a drain on the budget. In fact, the water paid for itself and then some, paying out about $1.5 million annually to the city’s general fund in the years leading up to the switch.You still cannot blame a republican governor for such an ongoing local infrastructure issue , Yet in the Obama era , everyone could weaponize race or party politics for general purpose AND did ! In fact ,no president has ever racialized social issues as much as Obama AND his followers have .
I would only agree that as governor , all ultimate blame ends up on his desk . In spite of the horrible local political and in fact democratic oversight .
Gee that's nice language , how about a fact and not a personal attack ?
Isn't that a flaggable offense ?You do realize that by generalizing and saying all liberals are inferior, that that can be construed as a personal attack too? Which you do in almost every post.
No , politics isn't personal , it's politics . it's Only the left that turns politics personal with the entire collective attacks against any opinion not of their design , Pointing out large or small group political hypocrisy isn't personal , especially just because you don't like it .
When's the last time you saw republicans ?
-burn police cruisers
-destroy store fronts
-shoot at a cop
-stage a "scream in "
-scream "pigs in a blanket "
-burn American flags
-stop highway traffic
Isn't totally not following the rules the same as a collapse?
The couple of comments about Jill Stein being investigated for possible "Russian connections" are excellent examples of the puerility of just about all of these allegations. "What has brought Russiagate to Jill Stein? The answer is that she attended the 10th Anniversary RT dinner in Moscow as did the notorious 'Russian collaborator' US General Michael Flynn."
We are to believe that attending an event located somewhere in Russia, conversing with a Russian diplomat (that's what we have foreign embassies for, BTW, so that "our people" can talk with "their people), engaging in a commercial transaction with a Russian entity, or even just talking with a Russian, or talking with someone who talked with a Russian apparently warrants investigation.
During the past year, I considered ordering some of those Russian piping tips, used for piping cake icing. Good thing I decided I wasn't all that interested in piping!
Paul Craig Roberts explains his decision not to accept a couple of invitations to attend events in Russia and Kazakhstan: "What is for sure is that if I accept these invitations, the US Establishment will discredit my voice when I write about US/Russia relations. Indeed, that was the intention of the PropOrNot Washington Post story that attacked 200 truth-tellers as Russian agents/dupes....I, too, was invited to RT’s 10th Anniversary celebration in Moscow....But I learned in time that the event was conferences and speeches and decided to forego a Moscow winter. Otherwise I would be in the dock with Trump, Flynn, and Jill Stein and whomever the Washington Gestapo settles on next....How much longer can I give interviews to Russian and Iranian media before the Washington Gestapo gives me a midnight knock on my door. Whatever America is, it is not a free country."
The Left would have us believe that mere travel to Russia or merely speaking with a Russian is, in itself, a criminal activity. Perhaps unfortunately for them, this notion is more than a bit of a stretch. But it appears to be all they've got.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-2 … -americansAbsolutely , Another important point , in our military upper echelon's for decades , officers and political diplomats have traveled to Russia and participated in cross diplomacy thereby improving post cold war relations .
It's only a new thing and a shallow charge from the left , this "collusion " mentality , What the hell does the left think ended the cold war to begin with ? Perestroika , Glasnost , "Tear down this wall " , Reagan was instrumental in changing US Russian relations forever , opening political and military relations from the dangers of the Cold War.
The problem today is ; The conservatives lead in diplomacy and the left not only follows but sabotages so much diplomatic progress !When 128 nations vote against us and only seven with us, that's some great diplomatic progress right there.
One more reason to financially exit the U.N. stage right , The sitting representative government officials aren't well representative of OPEN political statements ! Meaning if they 'openly' support Israel , they suffer 'open' hostility from her too numerous enemies . Your "left "ideology should get a grip on silent and secret diplomatic behavior , especially of that habit in the UN.
James Kunstler's summary of the original accusations against Mike Flynn:
"This is what it comes down to: General Mike Flynn, designated National Security Advisor, conferred with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak after the 2016 election about two pressing matters: a vote in the UN orchestrated against Israel, and sanctions imposed against Russia by outgoing President Obama on December 28, two weeks before the inauguration. Both these matters could be viewed as bits of mischief designed deliberately to create foreign policy problems for the incoming administration.
"Flynn’s discussions with Ambassador Kislyak amounted to what are called 'back channel talks.' These informal, probing communications occur all the time and everywhere in American foreign policy, especially the transitional months every four or eight years when a new president comes in. They are necessarily secret because they concern issues of high sensitivity. Every incoming presidential staff in my lifetime (going back to Dwight Eisenhower) has conducted back-channel talks with foreign diplomats in order to directly assess where things stand, minus public posturing and bloviating.
"And so that is what Mike Flynn did, as incoming National Security Advisor, after an eight-year run of worsening relations with Russia under Obama that Trump publicly pledged to improve. And now he’s been charged with lying to the FBI about it. Which raises some enormous and troubling questions well beyond the simple charge, questions that suggest a US government at war against itself.
"For instance, why exactly might Mike Flynn lie about his discussions with Kislyak? That ought to be self-evident as per what I said above: back channel talks are necessarily secret. But why not let Vice-president Pence or the FBI in on it? As for Pence, not all government officials are in-the-loop for back channel talks for the excellent reason that the fewer people involved the less chance of the talks becoming un-secret.
"And the FBI? Why, in December of 2016, might Trump and his aides consider the FBI to be an unreliable agency? Because they knew that officials in the FBI under Director James Comey had politicized the agency in favor of his opponent in the election; that the agency had misbehaved in the Clinton e-mail investigation, the meeting at the Phoenix airport between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the Christopher Steele Russian intel file affair. We don’t know whether, at that point, Trump and his staff knew about the FBI’s conduct in the Uranium One deal. But there was plenty of evidence that the permanent bureaucracy of Washington wanted to use a politicized FBI against Trump in any way that it could to get rid of him.
"And over the weekend, news comes out that Peter Strzok, the top FBI official assigned to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of collusion between Russia and Trump officials, had been removed from the probe after exchanging anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress, who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. This information was concealed from the congressional oversight committee that had formally subpoenaed emails from the FBI all year long, only to be stonewalled by the agency. So, now the committee is threatening contempt citations against the current FBI Director, Christopher Fry and Rod Rosenstein, his deputy."
Kunstler's rather bland statement that, "But there was plenty of evidence that the permanent bureaucracy of Washington wanted to use a politicized FBI against Trump in any way that it could to get rid of him," SHOULD inspire outrage.
What this amounts to is a bunch of government employees (private citizens) working actively to try to overthrow a duly elected president. The right name for such activity is subversion and treason, and indicates utter contempt for the will of the people of the US, democratic elections, and the electoral process.
http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/what-now-3/So, what about Flynn lying about being a registered agent for a foreign country at the same time he was NSA? And no one can lie to the FBI as if they were above the law, BH. I checked out the link and the guy who wrote the piece has no political experience at all. Just like you, I'd imagine.
And Flynn knew he was breaking the law as he'd been involved in the Govt. too many years to feign ignorance. Even when Trump was informed of Flynn being compromised by the Russians, Trump waited almost two weeks--weeks when Flynn was still allowed to sit in on secret intel meetings--before the moron fired him. Put the spin on that, BH!Trump fired Flynn didn't he ? I'm sure before he even had a desk at the white house .
Of course facts cannot ever be used by the left , Most liberal writers here and their talents arise from writing children's story books , Is it ten no wonder they're so good at fantasy politics too ?
Now, re that "permanent bureaucracy" and "politicized FBI" wanting to get rid of Trump at any cost--including criminalizing themselves--one may naturally wonder WHY?
I believe Hillary Clinton summed up the answer to this very well when she ranted to her staff about how, if Trump won the election, "we'll all hang from nooses!" Washington's "permanent bureaucracy" was counting on Hillary's election to keep their own crimes hidden, as well as Hillary's.
Another reason of almost equal importance is that the MIC wants war with Russia, or at the very least a repeat of the Cold War.
If our Leftist friends commenting here had ever examined the actual facts of the accusations and so far engaged their brains as to consider whether there is any rational basis to them, and if they were to consider the level of criminal and treasonous activity of prior administrations and their sycophants, I would assume they could figure this out.
I am forced to charitably assume that they have no acquaintance with the facts and that they are strangers to consecutive thought, let alone rational thought.Re the expectation that Flynn be registered as a foreign agent, I would be interested in an explanation as to why this is an issue.
"Dan Pickard, a partner at Wiley Rein and an expert in the Foreign Agents Registration Act, under which Flynn registered, said it is unusual but not unheard of for a senior campaign official to also be registered as an agent of a foreign government.
“ 'I’ve been aware of people who are registered under FARA being involved at relatively senior levels of a campaign, but in my experience that’s more the exception than the rule,'’ said Pickard, adding that the legal burden of complying with FARA 'is relatively modest.’
"FARA was passed in the run-up to World War II as a means of making pro-Germany activists acknowledge whether they were receiving financial support from that country."
To me this appears to be a non-issue based on legal hair-splitting. Had there been reason to believe that Flynn's activities were detrimental to US interests, the FBI would have gone after him for that. As far as I can tell, Flynn was not engaged in anything illegal or detrimental to US interests, or even particularly uncommon.
The determination as to whether one is required to register as a foreign agent is a matter that requires expert legal advice. As Sean Spicer put it, "The burden is on the individual to seek the legal advice or professional expertise to decide what they have to file and not....It’s not up to the transition attorney to go through someone’s livelihood and determine what they need to seek,” Spicer said. “They were given the proper legal advice at the time, which was to seek expertise in that matter." So it's pretty much of a bullshit charge. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 458cdb3f02I'm sorry, he didn't register as a foreign agent although he had been representing a foreign country at the time. He was said to have been planning to register but that would have been a conflict of interest while being the NSA. My bad!
Well, what actually happened is that both Russiagate and the Trump dossier were fabrications paid for by Clinton. It has been documented that Clinton paid for the Trump dossier. It has recently come to light that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson fabricated Russiagate and hired Chris Steele. (Glenn's wife bragged about this on Facebook.)
This fabricated "evidence" was taken to the FBI as a pretext for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump during the campaign. It's also been documented that several actors within the FBI accepted money from Clinton, and attempted to cover up or mitigate her criminal activity.
So, yes, the intel agencies are hopeless corrupt. To what end? Many of them are implicated in a wide range of crimes, some of them amounting to sedition/treason. We have, for example, McCabe plotting an "insurance policy" in case Trump got elected. It is not within the purview of the FBI to "select" the US president, let alone plot of remove him.The dossier was started by a Republican candidate's campaign member and was continued by one of Hillary's campaign attorneys. Geeze Sharon, you somehow neglected to mention that. Or did you get your info from Fox?
Clinton paid for this , under the auspices of the entire Obama administration , Lynch , the Emanual's , Podesta , Comey ,the DNC ...........This is just short of treasonous , under a Governing administration's oversight to have its entire D.O.J. , F.B.I , The entire news media ,state dept and other candidates participate in such a internationally colluding act .
Why do you think this Trump / Collusion defection ? This is not over yet .
"Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump’s background. The Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion’s efforts have not yet been identified.
"The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion."
However, "The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous “Trump dossier," which helped inspire the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians."
So--a little of both, it appears. Though I fail to see how the existence of "an unidentified GOP donor" is material to the point. (The GOP establishment was and is known to be hostile to Trump.)
While it is rather bad to hire Fusion GPS to fabricate some salacious material against Trump, it's the FBI involvement that carries this activity beyond the realm of dirty politics and into the realm of sedition/treason. The FBI was only too willing to accept this fabrication as a justification for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. In other words, the FBI itself engaged in meddling with the election, based on "evidence" that it knew, or should have known, to be a pure fabrication.
Further, "The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports." So here we see the FBI entering into a further agreement with Steele to "gather intelligence" (fabricate more material)--right up until their intended source was revealed to be huckster Steele. Here again, the FBI is shown to be acting to try to remove a sitting president.
"So to summarize:
"Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
"In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources, both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
"Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying "Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year", and by folks she ultimately means Hillary Clinton herself.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-2 … mp-dossierThis incredible act of sedition should be stapled to the foreheads of the liberals , of their biased media , after they start hanging The former director of the FBI, D.O.J. !
And many in the previous administration ,
Do you think "pardons " will come out of this to protect both parties members ?Are you kidding me? The link you furnished is a right wing site. How about a credible link?
And sorry Sharon, but a lot in the dossier has proven to be true and it's still being investigated.Like I said , Staple that" Dossier" to the foreheads of the Clinton MafiIt..............Okay figuratively .
It amazes me were hearing 0 for leaks from the Mueller team about any Hilary investigation , yet the "love affairs " of Clinton donating investigators and their ten thousand E mail's against Trump is just beginning to be in the news ?
What a three ring circus , A million $ a month , Send in the clowns .Randy, your point that "...a lot in the dossier has proven to be true..." has been addressed before. and I don't recall you providing support for it then either.
A quick look found this Oct. 25, 2017,Washington Post story, You should read it. Here is its summary:
"Conclusion
The Steele dossier makes a wide range of claims, many of which are rumors that couldn’t be independently verified. Many other claims involve things that would have been publicly known at the time the report was apparently drafted. Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated.
Read the article and see which specifically Trump related points you can find that have been validated. As I read the article, the only points that might be considered validated would be the geopolitical ones that didn't implicate involvement by Trump, or his campaign at all.
But here is a caveat: I did find a Nov. 2017 Newsweek article with this headline:
Trump-Russia Dossier Is Mostly True and I Did Not 'Invent It ..."
But wait... the subject of the article is Mr. Steele, the dossier author, who has also written a book he is now promoting. It was Steele that claimed the dossier was 80% - 90% true - not NewsWeek reporters.
Time to step up again Randy, what support do you have for your repeated claim the dossier is true?
GAStepping up, GA. I did say some of the dossier had been proven true, but not all.
https://www.yourtango.com/2017307315/wh … -pee-tapes
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/ … index.htmlWell Randy, I would say it looks more like 'half-stepping', than stepping up.
Yourtango.com? Come one Randy, as many times as I have seen you question someone's else's sources for bias and legitimacy, (as you said to Sharon; "Are you kidding me? The link you furnished is a right wing site. How about a credible link?") - you offer yourtango.com?
Look at their header menu choices:
LOVE - QUOTES - ZODIAC SIGNS & HOROSCOPES - FAMILY - HEARTBREAK - SELF - BUZZ - RADICAL ACCEPTANCE
Then take a look at their article's first lead;
"Yes: the Trump pee pee tapes might actually be real."
That was enough for me, but to be sure I hadn't caught your 'half-stepping flu' I did read the article, and followed most of its deep links.
I could have saved myself the time. I am surprised you would offer this link as a verification source.
First, they didn't have the honesty of the Washington Post's story to at least admit they couldn't verify any of the anti-Trump, and "salacious" Trump allegations - they just plugged them in-between the known geopolitical claims that the Post article addressed, (and admitted could have been known before the dossier's creation), I think the Post called it "The post-Nostradamus" scenario. It's easy to state as revelation when it could have already been known to happen.
Geesh! But at least your second link did have some credibility. However, all it verified was what the Post story verified; some of the geopolitical claims of the dossier were verifiable, but one; they weren't connected with any Trump actions, (or those of his team), and two; many of them could have been culled from known information, not just secret insider connections.
I can go with the Post's story inference; some of the dossier's Russian politics and political actions could possibly be considered verifiable, but none of the salacious anti-Trump claims have been verified. And in the context of claims made that the dossier's charges have been verified, (like the context of your use), it appears that none have been verified.
No your didn't "... say some of the dossier had been proven true...." you said ""...a lot in the dossier has proven to be true..."
So I went back to the Post article, (surely you won't claim the Post has a Right-leaning bias). They addressed the claims in this aspect;
"... dossier is composed of 17 “company intelligence reports..."”
They determined that they could possibly verify three of the "geopolitical" Russian actor claims. 3 out of 17.
Because I place much more credence in the Post's reporting, over sites like yourtango.com, once more let me offer their conclusion:
"The Steele dossier makes a wide range of claims, many of which are rumors that couldn’t be independently verified. Many other claims involve things that would have been publicly known at the time the report was apparently drafted. Although it’s impossible to say that the dossier is entirely inaccurate (there are some glimmers of accurate predictions), it is also impossible to say that it has been broadly validated."
GAI threw that first one in just to see if you'd read it, GA!. And to show BH how it feels to be given such links as proof of anything. I didn't put a
on the post because you don't understand emoticons. Geeze!
The second was serious. I can link more articles showing the veracity of my statement if you like. Only today I heard it repeated several times that parts of the dossier have been proven, despite those naysayers on these forums.
Yes Randy, some parts of the dossier do appear to be valid claims, but look which ones they are; the one's about Russia's political moves and intentions. I haven't seen where any of the "salacious" Anti-Trump, or Trump collusion, dossier claims have been validated.
I tend to believe Washington Post reporting - even when I do have to consider that they generally have a non-conservative political bias. I think their October article about the dossier was probably the most accurate, and truthful, concerning what we currently know about the claims.
You could find more links about validation claims, as could I, but I doubt you could find any with more credibility, or new information than the Post's article.
If those claims do get validated, I think you know I won't be defending them, but until then I also won't be accepting of claims that they have been.
GA
Randy Godwin, the source I quoted from is primarily a news aggregator, and the extensive quotes I provided from the article are from the Washington Post. Perhaps you'd like to address the facts rather than the source.
Further, "In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was “salacious and unverified.” While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ used them in an application to the FISA court." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-2 … nce-policy
But, hey, maybe you have some citation or link that indicates that the dossier has proven to be true, as you claim. The link provided is from the National Review. I have no idea whether this publication enjoys your imprimatur. Perhaps you have been given the authority to decide this matter of which authors/publications enjoy the official imprimatur. If so please provide a citation on THAT.
The article (from the National Review) further states, "The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the court with the FBI’s imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign."
What you want to do here, assuming you'd like to make a plausible argument, is present some facts.I'll try and make a case here. Fusion was hired, but they subcontracted out to Steele. Steele was not hired by any campaign, although it's reasonable to make the assumption he knew he was working for opponents of Trump.
But when you look into the investigation, you come up with things such as:
How good were Steele's sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.
Source E was “an ethnic Russian” and “close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
This individual proved to be a treasure trove of information. “Speaking in confidence to a compatriot,” the talkative Source E “admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.” Then this: “The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform.” And finally: “In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine.”
This was noted prior to Trump becoming President, and yet all of his actions towards NATO back up this statement. His campaign framed arguments to mirror it. Thinking an investigation might be needed based on this tidbit alone is not only required, but tantamount to national security.- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Newsflash ; Both establishment parties will keep Trump/Russia collusion alive in the media courtroom to monkey-wrench any Trump progress ! It's already ignored . Americans by party will believe whichever side they will. Sometime after any effective ability to prosecute anyone has passed , ie...Clinton , DNC , Brazzile , Steele , Assange , there will be new fake allegations pointing towards some other impeachment charge or another.
In the meantime we have skateboarding , backwards ball -cap wearing morons running the FBI , DOJ , and our news media ?
Where's it all end ? I'd say you've summarized the question, "How good were Steele's sources rather well: None are named; all are anonymous.
"Normally, such a ludicrous claim – along with the haziness of the sourcing – would demand greater skepticism about the rest of Steele’s feverish charges, but a curious aspect of the investigations into Russia’s alleged “meddling” in Election 2016 is that neither Steele nor the “oppo research” company, Fusion GPS, that hired him – reportedly with funding from Clinton allies – has been summoned to testify.
"Usually, official investigations begin with testimony from the people who are making the allegations, so their credibility and motives can be tested in an adversarial setting. Plus, some baseline information should be established: Who, for instance, paid for the contract? How much was the total and how much went to Steele? How much did Steele then pay his Russian contacts and did they, in turn, pay the alleged Russian insiders for information? Or are we supposed to believe that these “insiders” risked being identified as spies out of a commitment to the truth?"
The above would be the normal procedure. There are probably some difficulties involved in summoning Steele, a British national, to testify in a US court.
However, efforts have been made to obtain testimony from Fusion GPS executives, but, "In October, Fusion executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the committee." In other words, they invoked their 5th Amendment rights permitting them to refuse to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination.Instead of self-incrimination, they refused to testify in order to protect the group who initially started the funding, a never-trump republican, according to their own admission. As for Steele, his fee was disclosed and is out there with a little bit of research.
Welp, it says right here that "Fusion GPS partners plead the Fifth." http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/ … index.html
"Fusion GPS' Peter Fritsch and Thomas Catán invoked their Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions during their closed-door appearance before the committee, according to their attorney Joshua Levy."
The Fifth Amendment allows a person to refuse to incriminate themselves. It does not allow a person to refuse to answer questions "in order to protect the group who initially started the funding."
The questions outlined in reference to funding are a matter of normal procedure in an investigation. You ask these questions in part to establish credibility, since people may be amenable to saying certain things, if you pay them to. More importantly, one looks at funding of any operation to find out who's really behind the operation. In this case, Clinton employed several layers of "insulation" to distance herself from the dossier: She paid a law firm, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Steele, who paid his supposed informants.
Accordingly, Fusion GPS's bank records were subpoenaed. Fusion GPS appealed to a federal judge in Washington to block the subpoena. Later, "Lawyers for Fusion submitted a new request for a temporary restraining order preventing its bank, TD Bank, from producing records requested by the House panel regarding records of its transactions “with any law firm, ‘media company’ or journalist with which it has worked.” As far as I can find out, the House panel is still trying to get those financial records.I think when you say "they refused to testify in order to protect the group who initially started the funding," you are referring to the subpoena of bank records.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
All of this obstruction , phony charges , media warfare , cultural meltdown , voter guilt complex , Special investigations ? In the end , there will come an open ended Mueller result that half of America will accept and the other half will deny . Half the media will defend and the other half allege further crimes There will be soft shoeing charges against a couple Trump people and more allegations against Clinton's mafia.
Resulting Charges ? nada .............Investigation costs ? $35 + million dollars .
While you all fight over invented details of nonexistent crimes and misdemeanors . Here's an interview with William Binney, former head of the NSA, about the supposed Russian hack of the DNC. You can think what you want about Alex Jones (I'm not a fan, myself), but Binney's credentials are impeccable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QRRC2JsNxc
Long story short: Forensic analysis shows that the leaked material could not possibly have been a hack, because download speeds are incompatible with a hack. But...download speeds ARE a precise match with a thumb drive. Which is to say that the leak was an inside job--which it has been hinted may have been done by Seth Rich.
Now to me this seems like an elementary level of forensic analysis--though Binney says his team has found more evidence of one kind or another. Odd that the FBI never did even the most basic forensic analysis.I almost suspect that in the end , The corruption within the DNC , Clinton / Obama administration is going to be determined so politically corrupted that we the American public will not be allowed the resulting knowledge from all the investigating .
Consider it a J.F. Kennedy-ism , The JFK documents and what they reveal or in fact still hide . That the U.S. government offices themselves are the evil of this entire Trump/ Russia collusion investigation is too sensitive for our eye's.
Consider too , The Obama administration will eventually be determined the most integrity challenged presidency to come along in our entire history !Hi BlueHeron,
It's probably a good thing that you are not a fan of Alex Jones. Just the quick look that I took, (prompted by your video link), found that Binney's theory is disputed by members of his own group.
The original source of the Binney/Pompeo meeting news, The Intercept also reported that a co-leader of Binney's group, a fellow named Drake, and several other group members had split away from Binney because of disagreements with the conclusions of his memo.
Seems like a deeper dive might be in order before linking to almost any story associated with Alex Jones. The Binney theory may be a valid one, but for me, at this point, the taint of an Alex Jones association, along with the dispute of his fellow group members, puts me in the skeptics column.
GA
To repeat from the link quoted above, "In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was “salacious and unverified.” While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ used them in an application to the FISA court." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-2 … nce-policy
Now, I'd say that if James Comey, former FBI director, gave sworn testimony that the dossier was “salacious and unverified,” that pretty much settles it.
Further, since a FISA warrant against Trump was obtained months earler, using “salacious and unverified”...um..."intelligence," there is a strong appearance of very serious irregularities here, perhaps amounting to sedition, certainly in violation of the Hatch Act, and possibly in violation of RICO (racketeering) statutes.
Now, if you are aware of some additional information that has been revealed since Comey TESTIFIED as to the “salacious and unverified” nature of this material, please fill us in.
About all I can see that has happened since that time is Fusion GPS taking the Fifth and stonewalling subpoenas of their financial records. That, and the FBI refusing to allow anyone to see the FISA warrant. In other words, subsequent "developments" have consisted entirely of stonewalling on the part of those under investigation.Randy, your comment, "Only today I heard it repeated several times that parts of the dossier have been proven," is a little unconvincing.
This is not the way one goes about thinking. The way you go about thinking is by collecting facts, which you have verified to the best of your ability, and then applying reason and logic to these facts.
Presenting, "Only today I heard it repeated several times," as an argument is...um...highly bizarre.
Now, being human, I myself sometimes give undue weight to "stuff people say." I sometimes jump to conclusions. Sometimes ad hominems cross my mind. But somewhere along the line I learned that these reactions of the endocrine system are not "thought." Not only should the mind enforce some intellectual rigor to overrule them, it should also strongly caution you about letting stuff like this come out of your mouth.Did you check out the link I provided, BH? And Comey's statement was early on in the investigation. From what I understand the dossier contained info about Flynn and other Trump cronies meetings with the Russians. Hardly worthless or false info as we now know.
Many here have got to learn to decipher between their party's allegations and those of the whole picture , as the whole things aren't looking good for Clinton either ,
if Mueller ever get's off his a$$ ? One begins to see the obstructionist as getting more media leaks in their favor of course .There is a very simple explanation for 1. Why Trump refuses to implement the sanctions against the Russians and 2. Why the Republican Party won't do their legislative jobs and enforce them.
First of all, the RNC by Trump's own admission in the 2nd campaign debate, "donated $100 million," to his campaign. That means that the $100 million at that point was also being shared by other Republicans running for local or state offices. That is what the RNC's job is...to disperse all campaign donations according to FEC rules and regulations.
Then, there is the matter of the Republican Party building a wall around Trump to protect "themselves" from being involved in the Special Investigation. If any of them benefited in any way from that $100 million, they aided and abetted Trump's having received that money from Putin. Trump lied when he said he got that $100 million from casino owner Adelson.
The Republicans want an end to any discovery of how the Russians meddled in our election. They want it all shoved under the rug so like typical recidivists they can revisit hacking in all future elections.
What does that say about their violations of their oaths of office to protect voting rights in the US Constitution?
Trump CAN'T do anything about the Russian meddling without offending his chief benefactor. And, if he hopes to be re-elected by rigging the next election, he needs the Russian hackers now.The closer Mueller gets to Trump, the more those from the right will fade into the background. For now, they're doing their best to cover for the moron by blaming the intel services. Typical tyrannical desperation!
GA, a ways upthread you stated that "that Binney's theory is disputed by members of his own group." Perhaps you could explain exactly what part of "Binney's theory" is disputed. I don't believe there is any dispute whatsoever that the DNC was not hacked, but was rather an inside job, mostly likely downloaded to a thumb drive. Now if you can provide a citation that disputes that part, I'll be interested. The metadata analysis simply is what it is.
From the National Review: ""The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.
What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.
“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new … -dnc-hack/Hello again Blue Heron,
To set the stage, I ask that you remember my response stated that what little I knew came from; 1) your video link, 2)links I followed from a quick Google search, and 3) my past impressions of the BS that is Alex Jones and His InfoWars site.
I was unaware of the Binney theory/story until I viewed your posted link. And I am still too uninformed to get enter this forensic download speed stuff. But... I did take a shallow dive into the story to judge how I should accept Binney's declarations.
What I found was that most of the Google search story results were derived from what has been cited as the original TheIntercept.com interview.
And in that original interview article they stated this:
"VIPS claimed that speed was “much faster than what is physically possible with a hack,” and so the files had to have been stolen by an insider with direct access to the computer system.
But this argument led to a tense split within the VIPS group. Among others, Drake, who for so long had been closely associated with Binney, publicly opposed the memo, joining a group of dissenting VIPS members who have attacked it.
“A number of VIPS members did not sign this problematic memo because of troubling questions about its conclusions, and others who did sign it have raised key concerns since its publication,” states a competing memo written by Drake and other VIPS members and published September 1 on the website of The Nation magazine, which had earlier published a story about the Binney memo.
Drake and the dissenters complain that the original memo was deeply flawed and came to biased conclusions based only on a sketchy analysis of information ..."
That was enough to cause me to look a little deeper. So I followed the links to TheNation.com's article concerning the dissenting VIPS faction.
It appears you are completely accepting of Binney's declarations, but the information I cited above - (and again!), plus the Alex Jones connection, leaves me strongly skeptical of both the theory, and your acceptance of it.
It doesn't take any kind of "forensic" examination to understand that when a group dedicated to whistle-blower and exposure-type issues splits over a conspiracy theory pushed by only a faction of that group, that it is probable that the claim at issue isn't as solid as presented.
I have a perception that I have seen you post replies explaining proper steps in investigations, and such procedural necessities, so I will pose the same thought to you. Like the process that turns a hypothesis into a theory - the act of trying to disprove the hypothesis in order to accept it as a theory...
Did you see the article's segment about the VIPS dissenters, and did you dig around to see if there was any validity to their claim that Binney was off-base with his leap of faith based on just one "forensic" explanation? Do you think the info in the links I provided is just soured relationships?
Did you try to debunk Binney's theory in order to be comfortable accepting it? Or was the video all you needed?
GA
Related Discussions
- 92
Russian Hacking - What Will Trump Do When He Learns It's Real?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
Donald Trump, as late as January 1, 2017, has refused to acknowledge what most everybody, Democrats and Republicans (less Trump supporters) alike know to be true ... Vladimir Putin is behind the arguably successful attack on America's democracy by swaying American voters to vote for Trump rather...
- 82
Weakness Like We Have Never Seen Before in a U.S. President
by Allen Donald 6 years ago
Today in Helsinki, President Trump sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin against the U.S. Intelligence services, basically stating that he believed there wasn't any interference by Russia in the U.S. elections and believing President Putin over his own intelligence agencies.This comes after a...
- 99
The Effect of NO TRUMP in The World
by Kathryn L Hill 3 days ago
I am wondering if Trump's very existence is significant in today's world. For the brave commenters here, what if aliens take him to some far-off planet?How would the next day look? ( here ... or on that planet )
- 791
What to do About Russia and Ukraine?
by Scott Belford 9 days ago
The consequences of how this aggression by Putin unfolds are enormous. The worst, of course, is the possibility of nuclear war. The best (which would be negatively consequential to Putin) is that Russia has an epiphany and removes its troops from the Ukrainian border. Any move at...
- 28
SHOCKING: Trump Is Putin’s Puppet? FBI’s Counter Intelligence Inquiry
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
NY Times Reports: STUNNING: Another demonstrably unprecedented and EARTH-Shaking Development *******: We don't know for sure but how many more blatant, abominable and exceedingly destructive public displays of favoring and appeasing dictator Vladimir Putin do his last few remaining followers need...
- 21
Inconsistent; logically opposite DJT
by ptosis 11 months ago
Putin denied interfering in the 2016 president election and Trump accepted his denial. Putin said, “I got the impression that my answers satisfied him.”Trump took the word of the Russian autocrat over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security...