Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Conspiracy Theories

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Here's a timeline for you: the President of Ukraine is removed in February of 2014 by a military coup sponsored by Joe Biden.  Biden did this by backing far-right military outfits with close adjacency to neoNazi movements in Ukraine.  Two months later, in April of 2014, Joe Biden Jr. gets a cush job on a Ukrainian energy board making $50K a month.

Joe Biden helped overthrow a sovereign government in Ukraine, to shake the country down for himself and US interests.  Call it what you like, it was far more consequential and criminal than Trump's self-serving phone call.  It's not to say that what Trump did is right, it's to say that Biden is clearly not going to challenge systemic corruption, that he too is unfit for office, and this sort of corruption happens all the time in Washington on a scale much bigger than Trump himself.  Joe Biden is part of the same system that rewards and incentivizes people like Donald Trump.  

It doesn't take a genius to see impropriety here.  You don't even have to compare it to Trump- Joe Biden is not the president, he is a candidate running to be the Democratic Party nominee.  They have other options.  And if Joe Biden was engaged in the same sort of backdealing we've all come to loathe in DC, which he was, he needs to drop out and the Dems need to back a better candidate.  

Are you suggesting that Joe Biden singlehandedly forced regime change in Ukraine for the sole purpose of installing his son on the board of a privately held company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Are you suggesting that Joe Biden singlehandedly forced regime change in Ukraine for the sole purpose of installing his son on the board of a privately held company?

No- I’m not saying he did it by himself or explicitly for his son.  

I’m saying he helped overthrow a sovereign govt, and one of the many benefactors who looted it afterward was his son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

No- I’m not saying he did it by himself or explicitly for his son.  

I’m saying he helped overthrow a sovereign govt, and one of the many benefactors who looted it afterward was his son.

What’s wrong with being a benefactor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

No- I’m not saying he did it by himself or explicitly for his son.  

I’m saying he helped overthrow a sovereign govt, and one of the many benefactors who looted it afterward was his son.

Oh, ok.  Sounds a lot less nefarious when you put it that way. 

I mean, I'm ok with the US Gov'ts (of which Biden was a part of) encouragement in the Maidan revolution, as it's pretty clear the Yanukovich regime was quite corrupt and the people deserve better.*

I'm not going to argue that it looks like Hunter took advantage of his dad's name and influence.  It's a bad look, but I don't like the notion that someone CAN'T have a particular job because of whom his dad is.

* Actually, I'm unaware of the US role here, but I'm probably OK with whatever was done.  I expect you will disagree as we have vastly different opinions on what we should be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Ron Johnson mentioned “the reporting of John Solomon” at least twice this morning on Meet the Press. So ####### embarrassing. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, moleculo said:

Actually, I'm unaware of the US role here, but I'm probably OK with whatever was done.

Well as long as we're not questioning the policy at all, that's the important thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rudy Giuliani holds up what he claims are three affidavits but is actually a printout of a right-wing blog site... Later in the interview, he reads portions from the blog site printout as if they are from the affidavits.

- This happened with Solomon/Hannity before. Basically instead of the traditional pattern of alternative news sites leaking news the MSM won't publish, which when accurate is perfectly good and normal, here what is happening is alternative partisan sites are manufacturing theories that the White House (!) then is attempting to push out to create the perception they are true or actually prove true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About that 9/4/19 affidavit pushed out by John Solomon that Max posted:

Quote

 

DiGenova and Toensing, who played major roles in the Bill Clinton dramas of the 1990s and resurfaced amid Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, have signed up to represent Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian gas magnate who currently resides in Vienna pending extradition to the U.S. to face bribery charges.

Last year, the married lawyers were briefly expected to formally join Trump’s legal team to defend him in the special counsel’s investigation, but those plans were quickly scrapped due to conflicts of interest with their existing clients. The couple resurfaced, however, working in conjunction with efforts by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden.

For Firtash — who is fighting extradition from Austria to the U.S. to face bribery charges — his involvement began at least as early as July, when he parted ways with Lanny Davis, the lawyer who guided Bill Clinton through a variety of investigations and now represents Michael Cohen, the former Trump fixer who confessed to tax evasion, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress, among other crimes.

Firtash replaced Davis with Toensing and diGenova, a colorful and aggressive couple with a nose for scandal and skill at pushing a narrative through allies like John Solomon, the conservative columnist at the Hill who has been writing frequently about Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine and about Marie Yovanovitch, the veteran ambassador who was abruptly recalled in May amid attacks on her from Trump allies. DiGenova has gone on Fox News to attack Yovanovitch by name, claiming she had been privately telling others that the president was likely going to be impeached.

The couple also appeared in a packet of materials the State Department inspector general delivered to Congress on Wednesday, which Democrats described as unsubstantiated smears against Yovanovitch. The packet included a printout of an email Solomon sent to diGenova and Toensing, with a link to a column he wrote about Yovanovitch. The documents had been "distributed at the highest levels of the State Department," according to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

...Toensing, meanwhile, has been promoting Trump’s preferred narrative on television and social media. The New York Times reported in May that she had met with Yuriy Lutsenko, Viktor Shokin’s replacement as prosecutor general, and was planning to travel to Ukraine with Giuliani, though the trip was reportedly scrapped.

Like his predecessor, Lutsenko, who left his post in August, has been accused of corruption by Ukrainian reformers and Western officials. While still in his post, Lutsenko closed investigations into Burisma and its founder but then told Solomon in April that he possessed information related to the energy company that would be of interest to the Department of Justice. In an interview published on Sunday, he told the BBC that there was no reason to investigate the Bidens “according to Ukrainian law,” and that any investigation would be “the jurisdiction of the U.S.” He also told the L.A. Times he'd seen no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

It became clear that Toensing and diGenova’s PR efforts had intersected with their work for Firtash last week when an affidavit emerged that was signed by Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor general fired in 2016 at Joe Biden’s urging, and submitted on Firtash’s behalf to an Austrian court. At the time, it was the position of Western governments and institutions like the International Monetary Fund that Shokin should be removed, and by all accounts Biden was just representing the official U.S. position.

Recently, Shokin has been claiming that Biden pressured Ukraine’s government to fire him because the then-vice president’s son Hunter sat on the board of a natural gas company that Shokin’s office had been investigating — the same narrative that Toensing and diGenova have been pushing, but which the Biden camp adamantly denies.

In 2013, the Justice Department accused Firtash of bribing Indian officials as part of a racketeering scheme aimed at gaining approval for a titanium mining project in that country. Firtash is an “upper-echelon” associate of Russian organized crime, according to a 2017 Justice Department court filing. He told a U.S. ambassador of his consultations with the notorious Russian mob boss Semion Mogilevich, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable, though Firtash has denied it.

Shokin’s new affidavit claims that Biden improperly pressured the government of Ukraine to prevent Firtash from entering Ukraine — from which he could not be legally extradited — and links those claims to his previous allegations about the motivations behind Biden’s role in his firing. Biden’s representatives have said his son’s board position played no role in his official actions and pointed out that Western leaders had long wanted Shokin fired over his reluctance to pursue corruption investigations, including those targeting Burisma and its owner.

But Shokin’s move to speak up on behalf of Firtash has further undermined his credibility in the eyes of observers in the U.S. and Ukraine, who already viewed his campaign against Biden as the vendetta of a corrupt bureaucrat.

As the founder of RosUkrEnergo, Firtash acted as a middleman between the Russian and Ukrainian national natural gas companies, and allegedly played a central role in a corrupt scheme to use the profits from reselling cheap Russian gas to fund pro-Russia political forces in Ukraine.

Firtash worked with Paul Manafort on an abortive effort in 2008 to redevelop a New York hotel for $895 million. Firtash also reportedly played a role in Manafort’s 2005 hiring as a consultant to the Party of Regions, the pro-Russian political party of which Firtash was a major backer.

John Herbst, who served as ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, said the association with Firtash undermines the entire effort by Trump allies to push for investigations of the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian election interference. "The Giuliani team does not understand Ukraine. If it did, members of his team would not be representing Dmytro Firtash, perhaps the most odious oligarch in Ukraine,” said Herbst, now director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council. “Shokin’s defense of Firtash underscores that he was never and is not today a fighter against corruption.”

“It’s preposterous,” said Adrian Karatnycky, a Ukraine expert and former president of the pro-democracy NGO Freedom House, of the story laid out in the affidavit. Pointing to Firtash’s Kremlin ties, he said, "There is now a distinct possibility of a Russian hand in all this.”

DiGenova said he was in meetings in Vienna — where his client Firtash is awaiting extradition — and did not respond to questions. ...

Politico

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have to say I follow this stuff and I am flummoxed, but does anyone understand exactly what Trump is trying to get out of Ukraine with regard to Crowdstrike and the DNC server? Does he think Ukraine actually has the server???

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 5:28 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sorry, I have to say I follow this stuff and I am flummoxed, but does anyone understand exactly what Trump is trying to get out of Ukraine with regard to Crowdstrike and the DNC server? Does he think Ukraine actually has the server???

The whole premise of the Russians hacking the DNC server was to get dirt on Hillary to help Trump.  The DNC 'hired' Crowdstrike, a forensic intelligence company to 'determine' how  those emails got out.  Crowdstrike has DEEP ties to Hillary and the DNC through its founder.

To date, Crowdstrike was the entity allowed to examine the alleged server.  The FBI 'requested' to do so (did they?) but were rebuffed and ultimately only received a partial draft of Crowdstrike's report, not the final product.  Knowing that the FBI kicks in doors to seize evidence and given the possibility of affecting a National election, why didn't the FBI seize the server?  Why take Crowdstrike's word for what occurred, especially given their ties to the DNC/Hillary?

The ICA (Intelligence Community Association) written by Clapper's  hand picked squad based a great deal of their report on the DNC server being hacked.  The rest is mostly news stories that were quite possibly leaked to the media by Fusion GPS, Brennan, i.e.circular reporting or unsubstantiated rumors.  The DNI, CIA, and FBI (Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - all under criminal investigation right now) expressed high confidence in that assessment with the sole dissenter being Admiral Rodgers (NSA Director).  Admiral Rodgers was the guy who went and warned Trump about the illegal surveillance on him whereby Clapper tried to get him fired.

Mueller used the ICA as well as the server hack as a cornerstone to his report.  Take away the DNC hack and the ICA is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors most liked ginned up by Clapper/Brennan and Hillary's hacks Sid Bleumenthal, etc. to feed to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.  That gives credence to the Seth Rich story which is a can of worms.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:
On 10/18/2019 at 5:28 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sorry, I have to say I follow this stuff and I am flummoxed, but does anyone understand exactly what Trump is trying to get out of Ukraine with regard to Crowdstrike and the DNC server? Does he think Ukraine actually has the server???

The whole premise of the Russians hacking the DNC server was to get dirt on Hillary to help Trump.  The DNC 'hired' Crowdstrike, a forensic intelligence company to 'determine' how  those emails got out.  Crowdstrike has DEEP ties to Hillary and the DNC through its founder.

To date, Crowdstrike was the entity allowed to examine the alleged server.  The FBI 'requested' to do so (did they?) but were rebuffed and ultimately only received a partial draft of Crowdstrike's report, not the final product.  Knowing that the FBI kicks in doors to seize evidence and given the possibility of affecting a National election, why didn't the FBI seize the server?  Why take Crowdstrike's word for what occurred, especially given their ties to the DNC/Hillary?

The ICA (Intelligence Community Association) written by Clapper's  hand picked squad based a great deal of their report on the DNC server being hacked.  The rest is mostly news stories that were quite possibly leaked to the media by Fusion GPS, Brennan, i.e.circular reporting or unsubstantiated rumors.  The DNI, CIA, and FBI (Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - all under criminal investigation right now) expressed high confidence in that assessment with the sole dissenter being Admiral Rodgers (NSA Director).  Admiral Rodgers was the guy who went and warned Trump about the illegal surveillance on him whereby Clapper tried to get him fired.

Mueller used the ICA as well as the server hack as a cornerstone to his report.  Take away the DNC hack and the ICA is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors most liked ginned up by Clapper/Brennan and Hillary's hacks Sid Bleumenthal, etc. to feed to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.  That gives credence to the Seth Rich story which is a can of worms.

Delete your account.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:
On 10/18/2019 at 5:28 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sorry, I have to say I follow this stuff and I am flummoxed, but does anyone understand exactly what Trump is trying to get out of Ukraine with regard to Crowdstrike and the DNC server? Does he think Ukraine actually has the server???

The whole premise of the Russians hacking the DNC server was to get dirt on Hillary to help Trump.  The DNC 'hired' Crowdstrike, a forensic intelligence company to 'determine' how  those emails got out.  Crowdstrike has DEEP ties to Hillary and the DNC through its founder.

To date, Crowdstrike was the entity allowed to examine the alleged server.  The FBI 'requested' to do so (did they?) but were rebuffed and ultimately only received a partial draft of Crowdstrike's report, not the final product.  Knowing that the FBI kicks in doors to seize evidence and given the possibility of affecting a National election, why didn't the FBI seize the server?  Why take Crowdstrike's word for what occurred, especially given their ties to the DNC/Hillary?

The ICA (Intelligence Community Association) written by Clapper's  hand picked squad based a great deal of their report on the DNC server being hacked.  The rest is mostly news stories that were quite possibly leaked to the media by Fusion GPS, Brennan, i.e.circular reporting or unsubstantiated rumors.  The DNI, CIA, and FBI (Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - all under criminal investigation right now) expressed high confidence in that assessment with the sole dissenter being Admiral Rodgers (NSA Director).  Admiral Rodgers was the guy who went and warned Trump about the illegal surveillance on him whereby Clapper tried to get him fired.

Mueller used the ICA as well as the server hack as a cornerstone to his report.  Take away the DNC hack and the ICA is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors most liked ginned up by Clapper/Brennan and Hillary's hacks Sid Bleumenthal, etc. to feed to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.  That gives credence to the Seth Rich story which is a can of worms.

You posted a giant wall of Qanon-level text and still didn't manage to answer either of SiD's questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

You posted a giant wall of Qanon-level text and still didn't manage to answer either of SiD's questions.

False.  Do you really not understand why proving the Russians didn't hack the DNC server would help Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.

umm.....what?

Can someone flesh this out a bit more for me?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:
5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

You posted a giant wall of Qanon-level text and still didn't manage to answer either of SiD's questions.

False.  Do you really not understand why proving the Russians didn't hack the DNC server would help Trump?

Fair enough. I shall revise: You posted a giant wall of Qanon-level text which gave a semi-coherent answer to one of SiD's questions, while conveniently ignoring the other question, possibly because if you had given an honest answer to the second question, it would have completely nullified your response to the first question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Delete your account.

We can't loose Don't Noonan. We are fortunate to have an obvious insider who appears to have knowledge of classified information to help solidify some of these conspiracy theories.🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:
Quote

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.

umm.....what?

Can someone flesh this out a bit more for me?

DN is latching on to a Qanon conspiracy theory which claims that Crowdstrike took possession of the DNC server. Their "evidence" is based on the theory that Crowdstrike used a data transfer speed that was too fast for an internet download.

This conspiracy theory has been debunked numerous times (including this thorough slapdown), but DN refuses to acknowledge those facts and insists on pressing forward with his reality.

And once again, even if that aspect of the conspiracy theory is true, the fact remains that the very same server is still on U.S. soil, in a location known to the FBI. So the FBI could take possession of it to analyze whether or not Russia was involved with the hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

The whole premise of the Russians hacking the DNC server was to get dirt on Hillary to help Trump.  The DNC 'hired' Crowdstrike, a forensic intelligence company to 'determine' how  those emails got out.  Crowdstrike has DEEP ties to Hillary and the DNC through its founder.

To date, Crowdstrike was the entity allowed to examine the alleged server.  The FBI 'requested' to do so (did they?) but were rebuffed and ultimately only received a partial draft of Crowdstrike's report, not the final product.  Knowing that the FBI kicks in doors to seize evidence and given the possibility of affecting a National election, why didn't the FBI seize the server?  Why take Crowdstrike's word for what occurred, especially given their ties to the DNC/Hillary?

The ICA (Intelligence Community Association) written by Clapper's  hand picked squad based a great deal of their report on the DNC server being hacked.  The rest is mostly news stories that were quite possibly leaked to the media by Fusion GPS, Brennan, i.e.circular reporting or unsubstantiated rumors.  The DNI, CIA, and FBI (Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - all under criminal investigation right now) expressed high confidence in that assessment with the sole dissenter being Admiral Rodgers (NSA Director).  Admiral Rodgers was the guy who went and warned Trump about the illegal surveillance on him whereby Clapper tried to get him fired.

Mueller used the ICA as well as the server hack as a cornerstone to his report.  Take away the DNC hack and the ICA is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors most liked ginned up by Clapper/Brennan and Hillary's hacks Sid Bleumenthal, etc. to feed to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.  That gives credence to the Seth Rich story which is a can of worms.

Noonan, thanks for the response. I do think this or some version of it is actually the President’s position.

I’ver heard or read some or much of this before, but my question is really what does Trump expect to get from Ukraine and from within Ukraine itself on this? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

False.  Do you really not understand why proving the Russians didn't hack the DNC server would help Trump?

exactly.  It helps Trump.  Seeking info regarding the server helps Trump, not the US. 

So, we have a clear case of the President withholding military aide to an ally engaged in "hot war" for help with his personal vendetta against his own intelligence agencies and to stroke his ego.

Nice country we have here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, moleculo said:

exactly.  It helps Trump.  Seeking info regarding the server helps Trump, not the US. 

So, we have a clear case of the President withholding military aide to an ally engaged in "hot war" for help with his personal vendetta against his own intelligence agencies and to stroke his ego.

Nice country we have here.

Devil's advocate.  We had a President falsely accused of colluding with Russia that was fabricated by the opposing party in an effort to oust him out of office illegally.  When President was proven innocent by Mueller report he attempts to find out who was the real source who hacked our elections and the folks who originally wanted to know now don't care?

Nice country we have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

The whole premise of the Russians hacking the DNC server was to get dirt on Hillary to help Trump.  The DNC 'hired' Crowdstrike, a forensic intelligence company to 'determine' how  those emails got out.  Crowdstrike has DEEP ties to Hillary and the DNC through its founder.

To date, Crowdstrike was the entity allowed to examine the alleged server.  The FBI 'requested' to do so (did they?) but were rebuffed and ultimately only received a partial draft of Crowdstrike's report, not the final product.  Knowing that the FBI kicks in doors to seize evidence and given the possibility of affecting a National election, why didn't the FBI seize the server?  Why take Crowdstrike's word for what occurred, especially given their ties to the DNC/Hillary?

The ICA (Intelligence Community Association) written by Clapper's  hand picked squad based a great deal of their report on the DNC server being hacked.  The rest is mostly news stories that were quite possibly leaked to the media by Fusion GPS, Brennan, i.e.circular reporting or unsubstantiated rumors.  The DNI, CIA, and FBI (Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - all under criminal investigation right now) expressed high confidence in that assessment with the sole dissenter being Admiral Rodgers (NSA Director).  Admiral Rodgers was the guy who went and warned Trump about the illegal surveillance on him whereby Clapper tried to get him fired.

Mueller used the ICA as well as the server hack as a cornerstone to his report.  Take away the DNC hack and the ICA is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors most liked ginned up by Clapper/Brennan and Hillary's hacks Sid Bleumenthal, etc. to feed to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.  That gives credence to the Seth Rich story which is a can of worms.

Except Crowdstrike were not the only ones and The FBI and others were provided full data copies (not just some draft report).  Then download speed thing again?  :lmao:
What experts there? The forensicator?

Please provide links to back up your assertions here.

Edited by sho nuff
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

False.  Do you really not understand why proving the Russians didn't hack the DNC server would help Trump?

Its already been proven that they did.  This was nuts when you posted it years before at FFT and is even worse now.  This is just simply not honest stuff here man.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Devil's advocate.  We had a President falsely accused of colluding with Russia that was fabricated by the opposing party in an effort to oust him out of office illegally.  When President was proven innocent by Mueller report he attempts to find out who was the real source who hacked our elections and the folks who originally wanted to know now don't care?

Nice country we have here.

Have you ever really considered how elaborate this conspiracy theory is?  How many people, countries, agencies, etc would be required to pull it off, and not one single person blowing the whistle?  It's honestly insane to comprehend the scale of an operation like this, including all of the logical leaps one must make for it all to work.  

Consider: if caught, any of the operatives would be risking their careers and possibly jail time.  All of this to take down a candidate who was yet to secure his party's nomination and was very likely to lose in the general election.  Further, the gambit required releasing compromising, private communication from the DNC - quite the gamble, and very likely to backfire. 

all it would take to sink the whole operation is one person blowing the whistle.  That's it.  Out of all of the FBI, CIA, NSA, CrowdStrike, Australian State Department, Fusion GPS, etc...there isn't one person willing to put the good of the country over the good over the agency?  There isn't one person who took his oath of office seriously?

ETA: we know who hacked our elections.  It's in the Mueller report that you claim to have read and claim it "proves innocent". 

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Devil's advocate.  We had a President falsely accused of colluding with Russia that was fabricated by the opposing party in an effort to oust him out of office illegally.  When President was proven innocent by Mueller report he attempts to find out who was the real source who hacked our elections and the folks who originally wanted to know now don't care?

Nice country we have here.

It is nice that you allowed to spout of falsehoods and bogus conspiracy theories in this country.  Because what you said here just isn't true at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

DN is latching on to a Qanon conspiracy theory which claims that Crowdstrike took possession of the DNC server. Their "evidence" is based on the theory that Crowdstrike used a data transfer speed that was too fast for an internet download.

This conspiracy theory has been debunked numerous times (including this thorough slapdown), but DN refuses to acknowledge those facts and insists on pressing forward with his reality.

And once again, even if that aspect of the conspiracy theory is true, the fact remains that the very same server is still on U.S. soil, in a location known to the FBI. So the FBI could take possession of it to analyze whether or not Russia was involved with the hack.

Thanks, is this it?

The Bill Binney server speed theory was debunked at the very start - and even Binney (!) rejects it now. He claims he was given false information.

But is this the goal? Trump personally believes Crowdstrike took ‘the server’ and has it in Ukraine right now, and the Ukraine government will find it and return it to him?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

DN is latching on to a Qanon conspiracy theory which claims that Crowdstrike took possession of the DNC server. Their "evidence" is based on the theory that Crowdstrike used a data transfer speed that was too fast for an internet download.

This conspiracy theory has been debunked numerous times (including this thorough slapdown), but DN refuses to acknowledge those facts and insists on pressing forward with his reality.

And once again, even if that aspect of the conspiracy theory is true, the fact remains that the very same server is still on U.S. soil, in a location known to the FBI. So the FBI could take possession of it to analyze whether or not Russia was involved with the hack.

Ok...thanks.  I guess there can be some exceptions to the general rule regarding speed, but reality is, fiber connects most of the free world these days....we're way beyond 28K modems and cable modems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Ok...thanks.  I guess there can be some exceptions to the general rule regarding speed, but reality is, fiber connects most of the free world these days....we're way beyond 28K modems and cable modems.

Yep, the thing that blew apart that "Forensicator" stuff was that they seemed to not believe that Gigabit Internet connections exist in the real world. Even allowing for significantly less than optimal speeds, it was well within reach based on their own graph. I had one at my last place in Minneapolis for $60 a month through a local ISP. Back in mid '17 when I was first arguing against this crap (two years later, still going...), I even pointed out the hack was supposedly done by someone in Romania going by Guccifer 2.0 -- guess where you've been able to get Gigabit Internet speeds for as low as $18 USD a month since 2013? Romania. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Don't Noonan you didn't directly answer this when I tried to speak to you about this last, have you actually read the full indictment against the Russian intelligence officers that came about via the Mueller report? Do you believe that all of the very specific and detailed claims within it were arrived at solely based on a draft report created by CrowdStrike for the DNC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:
43 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Ok...thanks.  I guess there can be some exceptions to the general rule regarding speed, but reality is, fiber connects most of the free world these days....we're way beyond 28K modems and cable modems.

Yep, the thing that blew apart that "Forensicator" stuff was that they seemed to not believe that Gigabit Internet connections exist in the real world. Even allowing for significantly less than optimal speeds, it was well within reach based on their own graph. I had one at my last place in Minneapolis for $60 a month through a local ISP. Back in mid '17 when I was first arguing against this crap (two years later, still going...), I even pointed out the hack was supposedly done by someone in Romania going by Guccifer 2.0 -- guess where you've been able to get Gigabit Internet speeds for as low as $18 USD a month since 2013? Romania. 

:hifive:  

Where were you in the Clinton Server apologist thread GB?!?!?!?!?!  Could have used some help with that fiasco :lol: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there anything tying Crowdstrike to Ukraine?  anything at all, besides internet randos thinking Dmitri Alperovitch is Ukranian?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we now determine this isn't the talk of honest discussion? How many examples do we need before it’s properly labeled for what it is?  This isn't a difference of opinion.  This is posting knowingly false things to get people to react...no links provided...no answer of follow up questions from anyone.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Can we now determine this isn't the talk of honest discussion? How many examples do we need before it’s properly labeled for what it is?  This isn't a difference of opinion.  This is posting knowingly false things to get people to react...no links provided...no answer of follow up questions from anyone.

I don't think we can determine at this point that A) DN knows that he is posting false things about the DNC server, and B) that he is doing it to provoke a reaction.

It's true that he has yet to answer follow-up questions, but that could be due to the delay in receiving new talking points from whatever source is providing the false information to him.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a troll would openly admit to sourcing and believing in Qanon stuff, because it's so easily debunked (and because it renders his arguments as impotent). A true troll would never admit that he believes in debunked conspiracy theories.

Edited by [scooter]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Can we now determine this isn't the talk of honest discussion? How many examples do we need before it’s properly labeled for what it is?  This isn't a difference of opinion.  This is posting knowingly false things to get people to react...no links provided...no answer of follow up questions from anyone.

I guess my feeling on this is that this is White House policy, the position of the President, and so it's worth understanding. And it's part of his power, there's real influence behind this stuff. And at the core of it Mulvaney's statement put this as Trump's main motivator in events that may lead to his impeachment.

IMO it's also good to unpack this stuff in here rather than crowd other threads with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Can we now determine this isn't the talk of honest discussion? How many examples do we need before it’s properly labeled for what it is?  This isn't a difference of opinion.  This is posting knowingly false things to get people to react...no links provided...no answer of follow up questions from anyone.

 

Serious question in the interest of Joe's new plea to everyone.  Why do you respond to it?  Every.  Single. Time.   If you feel the way you do, why do you care so damn much?  You can label it whatever you want just as anyone else can.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I don't think we can determine at this point that A) DN knows that he is posting false things about the DNC server, and B) that he is doing it to provoke a reaction.

It's true that he has yet to answer follow-up questions, but that could be due to the delay in receiving new talking points from whatever source is providing the false information to him.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a troll would openly admit to sourcing and believing in Qanon stuff, because it's so easily debunked (and because it renders his arguments as impotent). A true troll would never admit that he believes in debunked conspiracy theories.

Claiming Crowdstrike is the only one who has saw it and FBI has only seem a report and nothing more...thats stuff that has been discussed and corrected as has the forensicator stuff.  Its not new information...its the recycled crap yet again.

It isnt being posted to result in constructive discussion at all...that is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

When President was proven innocent by Mueller report

You’ve made this claim literally dozens of times in this forum. You’ve also claimed to have read the Mueller report. These two statements contradict each other. 

If you had read the Mueller report, or even its introduction, you would have read this line: “If we could have exonerated President Trump  we would have done so.” Robert Mueller thought that line to be so important that he repeated in public on two separate occasions. Obviously the Mueller report could not have found him innocent. Thus your statements are false, and I am left with the following alternatives: 

1. You’re lying when you said you read the Mueller report. 

2. You’re trolling. 

3. Cognitive dissonance: your mind simply refuses to accept any information that might contradict your previously held beliefs. 

Please me know if I’m missing something here. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’ve made this claim literally dozens of times in this forum. You’ve also claimed to have read the Mueller report. These two statements contradict each other. 

If you had read the Mueller report, or even its introduction, you would have read this line: “If we could have exonerated President Trump  we would have done so.” Robert Mueller thought that line to be so important that he repeated in public on two separate occasions. Obviously the Mueller report could not have found him innocent. Thus your statements are false, and I am left with the following alternatives: 

1. You’re lying when you said you read the Mueller report. 

2. You’re trolling. 

3. Cognitive dissonance: your mind simply refuses to accept any information that might contradict your previously held beliefs. 

Please me know if I’m missing something here. 

You know he's never going to change his mind.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there's no single DNC server, right? One of the many reasons this conspiracy theory has no basis in reality.

Right, it's multiple servers and also multiple nodes (data centers) past the servers and McIntyre alludes to that further up.

eta - For instance from the DNC complaint.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there's no single DNC server, right? One of the many reasons this conspiracy theory has no basis in reality.

Also true...as has been pointed out.  And questions unanswered in another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of it was on a cloud also.

That is what is so frustrating about these times - there is no reality. Every time one of these government officials talks about "the server" I want to scream at my TV/radio for the press relentlessly get them to clarify WTF they are talking about and then present the facts to them that there is no "server." 

Because now we have people like Don't Noonan who hear these things and think it is real, especially considering we have people at the highest levels of government trying to find the non-existent server.

Infuriating.

Edited by TheMagus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they actually think the DNC had one computer running their entire network nationally? And why the %&$%*& would it end up in Ukraine????

🤬

/rant

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Do they actually think the DNC had one computer running their entire network nationally? And why the %&$%*& would it end up in Ukraine????

THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO FIND OUT!!! WHY WON'T YOU LET HIM INVESTIGATE THIS?!?!?!?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

And why the %&$%*& would it end up in Ukraine????

As I understand it, the theory is Alperovitch hates Russians, so he and the DNC conspired to take the evidence - "the server" - back to Ukraine, and frame the Russians. I think there's a side theory that the Ukraine intelligence services participated and they have "it", "the server". Basically doing a search of Noonan's explanation above led to this concept. Not posting any links because yeah.

- eta - More here, from Vanity Fair.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

As I understand it, the theory is Alperovitch hates Russians, so he and the DNC conspired to take the evidence - "the server" - back to Ukraine, and frame the Russians. I think there's a side theory that the Ukraine intelligence services participated and they have "it", "the server". Basically doing a search of Noonan's explanation above led to this concept. Not posting any links because yeah.

You know the source of this story is the Russians too. I was doing some research myself and I read an article that traced the start of the "theory" back to a random post on the internet (a blog, 4chan, reddit, something) by an anonymous poster. Then the various media outlets who report these types of things picked it up and ran with it. And now the freaking government of the United States of America is spending taxpayer money trying to find "the server". 

I would bet any amount of money that a Russian troll/bot started this whole thing. Makes sense as to why Ukraine was chosen as the nefarious foreign actor as opposed to Germany, Somalia, Brazil or any other random country in the world that might have agreed to smuggle and hide a server for the DNC. 

ETA: I just saw the link you added. And yea, figures it gained national prominence through a reporter working for Sputnik. :wall:

Edited by TheMagus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

You’ve made this claim literally dozens of times in this forum. You’ve also claimed to have read the Mueller report. These two statements contradict each other. 

If you had read the Mueller report, or even its introduction, you would have read this line: “If we could have exonerated President Trump  we would have done so.” Robert Mueller thought that line to be so important that he repeated in public on two separate occasions. Obviously the Mueller report could not have found him innocent. Thus your statements are false, and I am left with the following alternatives: 

1. You’re lying when you said you read the Mueller report. 

2. You’re trolling. 

3. Cognitive dissonance: your mind simply refuses to accept any information that might contradict your previously held beliefs. 

Please me know if I’m missing something here. 

95% of the echo chamber thought he was colluding with Russia and the Mueller report would nail him.  The Mueller report was awesome for Trump because it said no proven collusion/conspiracy with Russia.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

95% of the echo chamber thought he was colluding with Russia and the Mueller report would nail him.  The Mueller report was awesome for Trump because it said no proven collusion/conspiracy with Russia.

Thats not what you first claimed?

Any links for the claims you made about the server? Crowdstrike being the only firm that looked at it and the FbI only relied on a partial draft report?  Link on the download speeds?

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.