Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since they won’t be extradited to the US, we probably won’t every get to put them on trial.

If you would look at my post, I clearly asked if they had read the Mueller report. Read the report, don’t take folks word for what it says.

I could care less if you take me seriously or not.
 
farronwolf said:
Since they won’t be extradited to the US, we probably won’t every get to put them on trial.

If you would look at my post, I clearly asked if they had read the Mueller report. Read the report, don’t take folks word for what it says.

I could care less if you take me seriously or not.
Click to expand...
Very convenient for Mueller and Weissmann, no?

Perhaps when the 12 Russians travel to Ukraine on vacation, Joe Biden (when he is elected) can threaten their prosecutor with a quid pro quo to have them extradited, then we can resolve this debate. 😴

No wait…

… then the ever diligent Adam Schiff would have to impeach Joe and we would have to go through another debacle like the current one. Let’s Schiff skip that, shall we?

So what of the Senate Report you claim was evidence? Did you give up on that? Perhaps you ought to go back and edit your post? To be completely accurate, I mean.
 
Last edited:
The Senate report outlines the Russian interference in the 2016 election surrounding facebook, twitter etc, with bogus accounts and fake news. Kind of like what some folks are still referring to.

The Mueller report deals with that along with the DNC server hack.

You can choose to disregard all the findings of the FBI, DOJ and whatever other department you choose to ignore and take the word of the internet, or some other source if you choose.

Just remember that if something does come up on the Biden’s you can’t take the word of the DOJ, or FBI then either. Or will that be different? Selective acceptance maybe.

Qanon is looking for more supporters and folks to disseminate their disinformation.

If you will go back and read carefully, maybe a little slower this time. Ridgerunner said there was no evidence the russians hacked the server. My response was to that statement. I don’t believe I said they were guilty, I simply posted links to russians interference in our elections and the server.

Just so you’re clear. If I accuse you of a crime, there will be an investigation. If evidence is found, you will be indicted. If there is no evidence you won’t be. Folks don’t get indicted without evidence. I find it funny people who know nothing of the inner workings of the investigation simply disregard what is found and rely on other folks or the internet to make an argument from.
 
farronwolf said:
It starts on page 38 of the Mueller report volume 1.
…
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with the evidence used to indict the 12 Russians.

This is the key charge in the indictment…
In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC’s analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or “snapshots,” of the DNC’s cloud-based systems using the
cloud provider’s own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Source: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
Click to expand...
As it happens, the third-party cloud-computing service used by the DNC AND the conspirators to steal and store the data was CrowdStrike. The FBI never independently assessed the server but took CrowdStrike’s analysis at its word.

thehill.com

Comey: DNC denied FBI’s requests for access to hacked servers

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in public reports over whether the request was made.
thehill.com thehill.com

So what is the problem with that?

The co-founder and CTO of Crowdstrike is Dimiti Alperovitch. Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank that is openly anti-Russian and funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The FBI was denied all access to the servers by the DNC itself. Comey agreed to fully trust the results provided by CrowdStrike, which has ties to a variety of anti-Russian organizations, such as the Atlantic Council which supported the election of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in 2014.

Surely, both CrowdStrike and the DNC have serious vested interest concerns in defaming Russia, so James Comey head of the FBI outsourcing his job to CrowdStrike as the ONLY source of evidence of Russian hacking ought to be taken less than seriously. Purely the word of an anti-Russian Ukrainian Tech company and the DNC who have continually been slandering their political opponents with Russian Collusion or being Putin puppets is not a sound basis for a legal judgement.

Of course, Mueller knew it would never come to actual trial which is why he indicted the particular individuals he did.

Here is more on Alperovitch for those who are interested.

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/01/dnc-russian-hackers-found/
 
farronwolf said:
Qanon is looking for more supporters and folks to disseminate their disinformation.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that you are going to have to continually back track as more evidence comes to light to the point that everyone, including the DOJ, and the FBI, will eventually have to be accused to disseminating disinformation until all you have left to trust is the DNC.
 
farronwolf said:
Just so you’re clear. If I accuse you of a crime, there will be an investigation. If evidence is found, you will be indicted. If there is no evidence you won’t be. Folks don’t get indicted without evidence. I find it funny people who know nothing of the inner workings of the investigation simply disregard what is found and rely on other folks or the internet to make an argument from.
Click to expand...
Just so you are clear – the mere existence of evidence is not sufficient to find someone guilty of what they have been accused and indicted on.

Evidence is a “pointer” to possible guilt, not sufficient to establish guilt.

If you walk into a bank before it is robbed, that is evidence of your possible guilt, but it isn’t enough to find you guilty of doing so.

Knowing some “inner workings” of an investigation makes an interesting diatribe, but hardly enough to make your point. Folks don’t get indicted without evidence, but the evidence required for conviction is much more rigorous than just some “evidence.”
 
Any particular reason, you picked that one paragraph from count one when there are 50 some paragraphs.

What about counts 2 through 9, We just ignore those counts? I guess if it doesn’t fit your narrative it just gets ignored.
 
farronwolf said:
You are the one that made the jump from evidence to guilt. Not me.
Click to expand...
farronwolf said:
What about counts 2 through 9, We just ignore those counts? I guess if it doesn’t fit your narrative it just gets ignored.
Click to expand...
The initial point you contended was the following one. Points 2 through 9 are irrelevant to it.
Ridgerunner said:
There is no evidence whatever that the DNC hack was the Russians; only Crowdstrike’s word for it.
Click to expand...
farronwolf said:
There is no evidence whatever that the DNC hack was the Russians; only Crowdstrike’s word for it.

Really?
Click to expand...
My post #930 pretty much establishes that the only actual evidence that exists for DNC hacking is, as @Ridgerunner contended, CrowdStrike’s word for it. That is it. CrowdStrike made up a bunch of technical jargon about their server – which housed the DNC data, was the source of the apparent hack, and was the location the data dump was transferred to – ALL INTERNAL to CrowdStrike. The FBI took them purely at their word.

You think the FBI ought to trust as evidence purely the word of an anti-Russian Ukrainian tech company with connections to the anti-Russian Ukrainian politicians that overthrew the former Russian connected government and that constitutes solid evidence? No bias evident there, in your estimation? Uh huh.

Stop digging.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
That is it. CrowdStrike made up a bunch of technical jargon about their server – which housed the DNC data, was the source of the apparent hack, and was the location the data dump was transferred to – ALL INTERNAL to CrowdStrike. The FBI took them purely at their word.
Click to expand...
You are assuming the intelligence professionals have no other way of verifying the truth of data supplied to them. The intelligence community is satisfied. Unless contrary evidence comes to light, that is good enough for me.
 
To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the
Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the
DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as
“X-Tunnel,” to move the stolen documents outside the DCCC and DNC networks through
encrypted channels.
a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes
of data from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators
later moved the compressed DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer
located in Illinois.
b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same
computer located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to
connect to that computer to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC
Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to
accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.
 
X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from
the victims’ computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The
Conspirators referred to this server as their “AMS” panel. KOZACHEK,
MALYSHEV, and their co-conspirators logged into the AMS panel to use
X-Agent’s keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and
surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. The keylog function allowed the
Conspirators to capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot
function allowed the Conspirators to take pictures of the DCCC employees’
computer screens.
 
For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators
created and sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
LUKASHEV used the account “john356gh” at an online service that abbreviated
lengthy website addresses (referred to as a “URL-shortening service”).
LUKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the spearphishing email,
which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered the
appearance of the sender email address in order to make it look like the email was
a security notification from Google (a technique known as “spoofing”), instructing
the user to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions
were followed. On or about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
their co-conspirators stole the contents of the chairman’s email account, which
consisted of over 50,000 emails.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
That is it. CrowdStrike made up a bunch of technical jargon about their server – which housed the DNC data, was the source of the apparent hack, and was the location the data dump was transferred to – ALL INTERNAL to CrowdStrike. The FBI took them purely at their word.
Click to expand...
You are assuming the intelligence professionals have no other way of verifying the truth of data supplied to them. The intelligence community is satisfied. Unless contrary evidence comes to light, that is good enough for me.
Click to expand...
After seeing the members from the State Dept and intelligence community paraded into the public eye over the past few years – Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Page, the Ohrs, McCabe, Vindman, Ciaramella, etc., – we have very good reasons for not trusting the intelligence community.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Thank you for a fine example of how to disagree in a way that is productive. You laid out your reasons well, and I can see why we disagree.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome and thank you and I also can see why we disagree as you have laid out your reasons well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top