ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Didn't hilary have clasified inteligence data on a private computer a few years back.

That's illegal.

And if i remember correctly even big parts of the democrats where outraged by the fact she was not prosecuted for that offense.

And didn't obama lie to the entire nation when it came to obama care?

I really don't understand these double standarts, when a democrat does these things it's a non-issue but when a republic does them suddenly the world is in danger and the second comming of satan is closing in on us.

Peace,

-Boem-

Hillary is part of the crowd that extracts trillions from those who earn and is given to those who dont. I mean Clinton's never had a real job besides gov yet worth 300 million. Explain that one.

Anyway once you understand takers and makers everything is clear with politics.

Thats why libs had no issue with 40 million wasted paying Mueller and crew $600 an hour


Thats why I'm a republican. Not so much borders and whatnot. They want you to keep more what you earn..small gov

once you give someone control you're fucked..and if you ever depend on them you're doubly fucked since pols are at best Venal

I usually dont like these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzDN2Tl7OA

"

Chadwixx wrote:

I usually dont like these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzDN2Tl7OA

Meh. I liked it up until the "deep state"/"we're all going to jail" part. That part is mostly a vulgar tinfoil wet dream — the Deep State's preference for Democrats over Republicans is similar to a cannibal's preference for fat people over thin (the Deep State preys upon elected politicians regardless of party, but some make it fatter than others), and nothing the Democrats are engaged in will be found illegal, even if it should be (a judge already heard the case of the DNC cheating Bernie out of the primaries and ruled it legal).

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Your example is nonsense because collusion requires an agreement or cooperation. The Hillary example you gave had neither.

You sure about that? She hired a foreign agent to obtain Russian disinfo. That's cooperation with the foreign agent and, by proxy, with the Russians. If that's not cooperation, how is anything Trump did cooperation?

I'm sure. Christopher Steele was British not Russian.

Steele got his information from Russians. That's why I said by proxy. The rest of your post is off-topic. If you think that using publicly (!) leaked dirt to slam your opponent is somehow cooperation, then indirectly buying dirt (paying Steele to gather Russian disinfo) surely must be cooperation to. Explain how it's not.

"

Turtledove wrote:

You just don't know what collusion means. That is the point that you keep missing because you are so dedicated to believing the lies of a pathological liar.

I'll try again although I freely admit that you are not worth my time.

The Merriam-Webster definition of collusion is
:secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy.

Collusion carries a negative tone. You wouldn't say (or it would be incorrect to say) that"The Mothers colluded with their daughters to help them sell Girl Scout cookies in front of the supermarket."

It would be incorrect as well to say "Mueller colluded with his investigators to investigate Trump."

Even if done in secret, it wouldn't be collusion, unless there was deceit or ill intent behind hit.

It would be incorrect to say that "Bex colluded with the GGG development team to make some cryptic teasers about the upcoming new league for Path of Exile."

Now if Bex broke into Chris Wilson's laptop, stole some ideas and sent them to another company, she would be colluding with that company.

If, as you wrote "Russia stole the emails and published them on Wikileaks and Trump used that constantly especially in the last few weeks of his campaign." then that WOULD BE collusion. That didn't happen BTW - The DNC emails were stolen internally. That was proven by data transfer rates.

That Seth Rich provided the data will come out in the news. The NSA has 32 pages of communications between Seth Rich and Assange.

https://medium.com/@markfmccarty/bill-binney-states-that-the-nsa-has-32-pages-of-communications-between-seth-rich-and-julian-54a2df5a0e5b

There are other developments that may come to light in the next few weeks that are really going to look bad for "Muh Russia" collusionists in the DNC and media.

Podesta was "hacked" for two reasons (not saying they are legal, but pointing out it didn't take a big national effort by someone like Russia to do it.)

1) He responded to a phishing email with a URL shortener
2) He used "Password" as his password, and when he found out he had been exposed he changed it to the cryptic "Runner4567"

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd he had someone email him his password on his compromised account in plain text.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6589

Had the Side of Beef been elected John Password Podesta would have been advising her on US national security.

The DNC is a bunch of clowns and not the good kind either.

One thing about the Mueller report I haven't mentioned yet: as someone who was skeptical of the determination that Russians conducted the hack on the DNC, given their (admittedly understandable) refusal to make evidence public, I found Volume I of the report more interesting than most. While it wasn't quite the evidence, it was a detailed explanation of what computers were compromised, by what general means, when, and how often — which is, at the very least, the strongest possible implication of having evidence to support such specific claims. When you're listing a precise list of programs installed — I laughed at a list of four programs where 3 were hacking tools and the 4th was a benign ZIP program, sounding all nefarious by association — it's hard to believe that you're talking out your ass.

It's worth noting that, while one could argue that the Forensicator's infamous conclusion (to wit: that the DNC hack was in-person) was contradicted by the Mueller report, the report did explain the DNC hack in a way that conforms to the evidence the Forensicator was pointing to. The Forensicator's conclusion was based on the premise that evidence of copying speeds, made publicly available via WikiLeaks, were not consistent with internet travel from the US to Russia; the data indicated speeds higher than that. Such records could be doctored, but given the effort of doing so I couldn't see why the hackers and/or WikiLeaks would.

The Mueller report describes the DNC hack as beginning with infiltration of the DCCC computer network, after which the hackers used a VPN connection from some DCCC workstations to the DNC servers as a point of entry into the separate network. Some light Googling (better late than never) reveals that these separate networks share the same building, and very likely the same ISP. Given that the DNC network was apparently secure enough to require a DCCC workstation to access it, this actually lines up with the "local speeds" explanation — the data was initially transferred via a very short, essentially local hop.

In short, the data wasn't wrong (or doctored), the hypothesis was. I feel more than a little embarrassed I didn't think of it sooner, because I genuinely feel like I should have been able to. But hey, at least it's appreciated by me that the Mueller report includes, for the first time I'm aware of, public disclosure of some of these details. Damn near three years late in my opinion, but better late than never.

I thought DNC didnt allow inspection of computer by fbi and was all sourced from a democratic IT firm... To me it's all bullshit from beginning to end and an attempted coup, which is real crime here. Although I dont really care for trump as post history makes clear this was a coup attempt which should not be surprising since we staged 65 of them since WW2

chickens came home to roost thats what happens when gov has too much power.

(oh not to mention huge irony condemning others for interference in our elections which we do by hook or crook on the reg)

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The DNC emails were stolen internally. That was proven by data transfer rates.

That Seth Rich provided the data will come out in the news.

I wrote and submitted my previous post without being aware of this post — what a coincidence! — but the redacted Mueller report is basically representing that the unredacted report is a complete refutation of the Forensicator data speed hypothesis. I am pretty convinced Russians hacked the DCCC/DNC networks now.

My only remaining concern is...

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

I thought DNC didnt allow inspection of computer by fbi and was all sourced from a democratic IT firm... To me it's all bullshit from beginning to end

The Mueller report is certainly representing a detailed and extensive pile of evidence, down to and including logs pulled from compromised systems, but I wonder if that's what Mueller's team actually got to see — the primary evidence — or a derivative report written by some CrowdStrike employee. I am fairly confident that Mueller's team never got hands-on with the effected systems themselves, but if CrowdStrike handed over logs it could be very difficult to fabricate evidence in a way that didn't lead to contradictions upon thorough examination. My overall belief is that Mueller was most likely working with real evidence — not mere summaries — provided by CrowdStrike, and the report's conclusions therefore valid. But with some of those redactions I'll never be 100% sure, merely confident.

I'm loathe to believe that these investigators who spent over $30M of US taxpayer money would copypasta a story from a contractor in lieu of actually investigating. As investigators, that's what they were paid to do.

Bottom line is we never saw a smoking gun of either Russian interference, hacking or other shit they allege. Most of you were lied into Iraq wars on WMD's that never showed up.. How much that costed 2-3 trillion? Not to mention blood of Americans and Iraqis. 30M is chump change in the lying business. I trust nothing from .gov