So you have some study to do.


I doubt you will, however.

Again with the nonsense leaps. Are you actually saying that because the Russian lawyer wanted the repeal of the Magnitsky Act which was enacted in response to the testimony of Bill Browder, who you claim is lying (where's your evidence?) — Michael

Evidence supplied. Browder testimony in link provided.

So that is “where” my evidence is. Right in this thread.

If you don’t want to open it, but claim I provided no evidence, then you are disingenuous.

Again, what does this have to do with anything we're discussing — Michael

It’s always the entire geopolitics. The Trump/Russia conspiracy theory is not in isolation. It involves Crimea, Ukraine, and all those US neocon politicians along with the corrupt financiers such as Browder.

Obama became intimate with Browder’s story. The Magnitsky Act followed.

Trump-Russia-DNC is not in it’s own vacuum. It is a cover piece.

What does Bill Browder have to do with anything we're discussing? Are you just losing your mind and spouting out random nonsense? — Michael

It is in the history within the article I have linked which you have not read. The story is entwined with the current twists of US, Russia relations.

Links to those relations and Browder are within article. So the article itself links to other sources.

Why rely on another’s narrative of a source?

Might as well stick to buzzfeed if you do that.

Browder, an utter fraudster. Caught stealing from Russia $230,000,000. Created a coverup story implicating enemies. He sweats through this testimony pretending to not know hardly anything, yet he has written an entire book of his “evidence”.

Bill Browder had called John Kerry “Putin’s lapdog”.

Browder renounced his US citizenship to avoid new tax laws in the US, and eventually, years later, constructs a hero-of-the-US narrative to hide his theft of Russia.

He lied that Magnitsky was a his lawyer. He was his accomplice, as accountant, in the theft.

Browder was sued successfully in London by the Russian investigator he accused of killing Magnitsky.

Bill Broweder’s lying is obvious. I watched his entire testimony in 7 parts.

https://youtu.be/OBjO0TIb7pw

You certainly couldn’t have read the article in that time.

A week ago, or so, I watched this documentary on YouTube. Immediately after I posted link to this forum. Within 2 or 3 days Youtube purged the video from it’s platform.

Hello 1984.

A Scandal of The West’s News-Suppression, to ‘Justify’ U.S.-v.-Russia War
Posted on February 1, 2018 by Eric Zuesse.
Eric Zuesse

An accountant, Sergei Magnitsky, was employed by a wealthy American investor, William Browder, and died in a Russian prison on 16 November 2006. How did it happen; who was to blame for it? The Russian Government was blamed for it, and this blame produced in 2012 the first set of economic sanctions to squeeze Vladimir Putin out of power.

Magnitsky’s death in prison thus provided the factual basis for the first of the economic-sanctions regimens that were imposed by The West against the Russian Government, the 2012 Magnitsky Act — sanctions that preceded the 2014 sanctions which were imposed on account of Russia’s response to America’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine. However, that account of the Magnitsky incident is full of lies, according to a 2016 documentary investigation into the matter. But publication of this video investigation — at youtube or anywhere — is effectively banned in The West.

Here’s how Gilbert Doctorow, who is one of the extremely few people in The West who managed to see this totally-suppressed-in-The-West investigative news-documentary that was done (and which he said proved to him that the basis of the Magnitsky Act is lies) expressed his shock, at what he saw and learned from it

https://youtu.be/fWkfpGCAAuw

Including motive (Pence to replace Trump).

A fuller history, perhaps:

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/agents-at-ap-hudson-institute-collaborate-with-impeach-trump-effort/

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business

Well, we should all know what the “business” is by now.


Insert evidence of DNC servers being hacked by Putin here >……………………<

Or go home.

The “server” Trump is obsessed with is actually 140 servers, most of them cloud-based, which the DNC was forced to decommission in June 2016 while trying to rid its network of the Russian GRU officers working to help Trump win the election, according to the figures in the DNC’s civil lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign. Another 180 desktop and laptop computers were also swapped out as the DNC raced to get the organization back on its feet and free of Putin’s surveillance

They certainly don’t miss a trick to find an excuse to destroy evidence of what would have been contrary to the narrative.

Clinton: “Like, with a cloth? *chuckle, chuckle*”

Evidence thereof, within >...........<

That's not how it works. Your opinion and theories are decidedly not as worthy as mine because you spout conspirational bullshit — Benkei

They want you to merely believe, and that is what you are doing.

Insert “hacked by Putin” DNC servers here

>.......................................................<

or go home.

Your crying is utterly boring.

Objectivism isn’t real.

Everything is subjective.

I’m not interested until I see the evidence. Until then my opinions and theories are as worthy as yours.

What you decide to believe is true is a belief nonetheless.

And yet, YOU have not seen evidence.

The government military industrial complex lies ad finitum. Always have.

How is your wardrobe of brown shirts?

Didn't I already post this?

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server — Michael

You had, and I remember replying with an article such as this one (or it was this one).

By EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS January 10, 2017, 2:36 PM
FBI Director Comey: Agency requested access to DNC servers.

“The FBI requested access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) servers and servers for other Democratic entities that were hacked during the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday, but its request was not met.

In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies’ findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were “multiple requests at different levels” for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a “highly respected private company” was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.

“Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,” he said. The company to which Comey was referring is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company doing the internal defense and investigation for the DNC”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-director-comey-agency-requested-access-to-dnc-servers/

So. Were they, Comey included, lying back then about an actual server?

It's an indisputable fact the Russians have spend millions on building up an apparatus to influence US public opinion and undermine US democracy. Quite succesfully as you exemplify everytime you write anything. — Benkei

I would say it is merely something they have been doing with the US for decades just as the US have been doing to them for decades.

You really think this stuff is new? No memory of hearing about the Cold War?

This crap relies on short memories and zero insight of sheeples.

They do happen to put a lot of work into their coverups.

No, not interested in this “Q” deal.

False presumption. A presumption that is false. You presumed something, ignorant of whether it's true or false. It's false, as Michael's reply indicates. I'm pretty sure that that's all he meant, making your above response quite amusing — Sapientia

I’m happy that you are amused.

But Trump is like a fat, clumsy oaf who boasts about his tremendous stability. If he were to fall flat on his face, he would've had it coming to him, and it would be hard not to relish — Sapientia

Your intellect on this matter is outstanding.......for you.

Again, you cannot access files without changing their records. Hence, forensic research of computer systems is done on the basis of an image, which the FBI received — Benkei

They received Crowdstrike’s analysis.

So let’s breakdown the only “evidence” YOU have seen.


“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.”

Ok, yeah? Please, master, do tell us more.

“Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries”

Ah master. Thine sight is hitherto restorith.

What is indisputable is that the Russians meddled in the US election. — Benkei

Now you are sliding from what you were arguing about. Now you’re back to Facebook ads.

It is indisputable that this is the only “evidence YOU have seen:

“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“

Access to the server changes the records if you go scrummaging around in it. It's like having people trample all over a crime scene. An image is better as it becomes "static" data, like having a professional forensic scientist take photographs and collect evidence at a crime scene — Benkei

Now that is stupid. Access to the server does not automatically equate with “scrummaging around in it”.

It means the FBI use the tools necessary rather than analyse the analysis of private company Crowdstrike.

So let us combine these two.

“Third, the Dutch, UK and German intelligence agencies warned the US about the hacks. That's why they know they hacked the DNC systems already back in 2015 because the Dutch had hacked the Russian hackers and could see what they were doing in real-time“


“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“

With all the supposed resources outlined at the top, the pathetic assessment follows.

Why no server? Why image and not the server itself?

You are the intended audience of this nonsense.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that intelligence agencies might be inclined to keep their sources private — ProbablyTrue

Like how intelligence agents leak to the press?

The only “source” is the supposedly “hacked” server. The server the FBI were denied access to.

So what could be alternative sources to keep private?

Guccifer 2.0?

If they knew who that is he would be locked up.

Anyway, they know who guc 2 is. It’s themselves trying to set up others to steer eyes away from the Clinton cabal network of thieves and murderers.

“Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity”

Look at this line, “most likely”.

They are “confident” about a theory they are left with. They show nothing else other than a theory.

A theory is not factual evidence whether confident about or otherwise.

In fact it is quite pathetic that this tiny paragraph is supposed to be convincing. What it really shows is a complete lack of confidence because no detail is supplied.

Why no detail?

Because they have no detail. No server + no detail = no confidence. So we’ll just say we are confident.

That’s all the dumb public will need.

Ok.

The FBI were denied access to the DNC server.

Here, from that document, is all that is said with regard to an analysis that the server was hacked rather than extracted by means of a device then leaked to Wikileaks.

“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.”

So much for “evidence”.

The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda

Often it is the other way around, from my experience.

Should I have felt used?

Is what you wrote just your experience, or what survey are you referring to?

For fairness every accuser should have to face a situation of making their accusations under oath, if what we are looking at here are suggestions that Trump or his personal have done things wrong which subject them to legal scrutiny.

That document is not about evidence of the Trump election campaign colluding with the Russian government.

Well, Trump is under constant attack which seems designed to trip him up on practically anything in order to obstruct his program,

Consequently he cannot really focus on all of it AND do the job he is supposed to be doing.

And now it’s campaign mode again,

I think in his 2nd term things will have reached beyond all these attempts to relitigate the 2016 election.

Maybe actual court cases will have been begun or processed by then, rather than these media wars.

On the other hand, it may not have been safe from a political optics, prior to election, point of view, as, at that time, the actual victims of a set up meeting would not have had all the information to show the extent of the set up.

there were many many chances along the way from late 2016 to just tell the truth. Does it not bother you that the President, his son, and his staff, continually and badly lied about this meeting? — Rank Amateur

I think mistakes were made along the way. The mistakes maybe just that some of these guys did not realize they would have been safe from the outset to lay it all out.

with a representative of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton). — Michael

There is plenty of dirt to be found. Once it is all gathered, or that obstruction to it is conquered, then it will become apparent.