Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Obama Conspiracy to take down POTUS (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter moleculo
- Start date
sho nuff
Footballguy
bagger
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
If you dig deep enough you get to China but if you dig deeper than that, you likely end up in hell.Satan?
ren hoek
Footballguy
Hey. Resident conspiracy theorist here. It's been too long since I've been shamed, gaslighted and called a traitor for disagreeing about Russia.
@Dedfin had asked a while back for a rundown on why I think the Russian conspiracy is bogus. I've considered that question for a long time. This is most of the stuff I have a problem with personally. Basically for me it begins and ends with the "hack". I have some real serious reservations about taking the US government on faith. After its work (and the media's work) manufacturing consent for Iraq, intelligence officials lying to Congress over and over again- with regard to their own intelligence, its actions abroad, about torture, domestic surveillance on US citizens, etc.- they have destroyed their credibility forever. In lieu of truly independent confirmation, I struggle with the herd mentality acceptance of the hacking attribution.
-Guccifer 2.0:
-Not one of the indictments appears to have anything to do with collusion.
-Most of the 'insidious' interactions between Trump admin and Russian officials are more easily explained by general corruption (as opposed to some sort of election collusion), some by just basic run-of-the-mill diplomacy. Some of the interactions, as with the Flynn case, are explained by collusion with Israel (getting a UN vote in Israel's favor, which Russia declined).
I know most will disagree. Fact is, I don't know what happened or why it happened. But in the meantime, in lieu of something concrete proving otherwise, consider me unconvinced.
Here's some of my favorite links from the past year:
What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Russian Hacking
Russia's Plot to Make America Racist
Moderate Rebels Podcast // Puppy memes & Pokemon: How Russiagate went off the rails, with Aaron Maté (Ep. 8)
Russiagate is Excuse for Democratic Party Failure
@Dedfin had asked a while back for a rundown on why I think the Russian conspiracy is bogus. I've considered that question for a long time. This is most of the stuff I have a problem with personally. Basically for me it begins and ends with the "hack". I have some real serious reservations about taking the US government on faith. After its work (and the media's work) manufacturing consent for Iraq, intelligence officials lying to Congress over and over again- with regard to their own intelligence, its actions abroad, about torture, domestic surveillance on US citizens, etc.- they have destroyed their credibility forever. In lieu of truly independent confirmation, I struggle with the herd mentality acceptance of the hacking attribution.
-Guccifer 2.0:
- After the CrowdStrike report, Guccifer 2.0 went on the offensive to take credit. As a result, his blog and twitter accounts (at the time) were new and lack historical substantiation.
- The documents he posted online were a mixture of some from the public domain (eg. already been published by OpenSecrets.org in 2009), were manipulated copies of research documents originally created by Lauren Dillon (see attachments) and others or were legitimate, unique documents that were of little significant damage to the DNC. (Such as the DCCC documents)
- Left comically obvious 'fingerprints' of Russian identity, belying the notion of a sophisticated state hacker. The "evidence" that he's Russian, should be understood in the following context:
He CHOSE to name his computer account after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police.
He CHOSE to create/open and then save documents so the Russian name was written to metadata.
He CHOSE to use a Russian VPN service to cloak his IP address.
He CHOSE to use public web-based email services that would forward his cloaked IP.
He CHOSE to use the above to contact various media outlets on the same day.
Guccifer2.0 covered himself and the files in the digital equivalent of "Made In Russia" labels while claiming to be a Romanian. (Giving cyber-security firms, journalists and others a flimsy veil they could easily pull off and find Russian "fingerprints" behind)
- Going back to the 4th, the supposed "Clinton Foundation Hack" - is also where his claim starts to show cracks.
He stated "I can’t post all databases here for they’re too large. I’m looking for a better way to release them now.".
Why, if he was really the source for the DNC emails, would he be at all struggling to find a solution to get the data published? - Why express this 73 days after the last large batch of data he claims to have acquired was successfully published through Wikileaks?
- As it stands now, none of the Guccifer 2.0 breach details can be independently verified, and if he is indeed an independent actor, he claims to have much stronger technical capabilities than that of his “BEAR” neighbors who were freely operating within the DNC, and are purportedly associated with the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) and the Foreign Intelligence Service (FSB). (link)
- Reading: http://g-2.space/, https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-0-dnc-breach/#breadcrumbs. I'd like to qualify the g2.space page by granting that it does link to some rather conspiracy-indulging places on the internet, but there is still a lot of useful information there, particularly the timeline and links to several other articles of note.
- Just personal editorializing, I struggle with the notion that a subversive hacker of some sort would base their identity off another hacker and have such a boring persona. Compare Guccifer 2.0 to LulzSec, Anonymous, etc. Looking at the timeline on g-2.space, it's as if it were an alias created within days to confirm Crowdstrike reporting, control attribution of the hack (leak), and muddy the waters. His writings seem like a caricature of what a boomer thinks a hacker would write ("#### the Illuminati and their conspiracies!!!!!!!!!"), not a thoughtful or cerebral type as these sorts usually are.
- Why, if the Russian government hacked the DNC, bother creating such a thinly veiled alias that would make it so plainly easy to attribute it to Russia? Why not just publish directly to Wikileaks and be done with it, avoiding any unnecessary attribution at all?
- The cyber security firm outsourced by the Democratic National Committee, CrowdStrike, reportedly misread data, falsely attributing a hacking in Ukraine to the Russians in December 2016.
- FBI denied access to server
- DHS denied access to server
- “If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn’t means either that the evidence doesn’t exist or that it is classified,” he wrote in a Medium post on December 30, 2016, while Obama was still in office. “If it’s classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling ‘attribution-as-a-service.'” (link)
- Both of the main drivers linking Trump to Russia- the Steele dossier and Crowdstrike report- were paid for by the DNC. (link)
- Run by virulently anti-Putin Russian, senior fellow of NatSec NATO blob Atlantic Council, Dmitri Alperovitch.
- Co-founded by Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director (EAD) of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch (CCRSB) under Robert Mueller.
- Lobbied to defeat Magnitsky Act on one hand, which Veselnitskaya was involved with; hired to dig up Russian dirt against Trump on the other. (link)
- Veselnitskaya meeting largely overblown as part of key Russian plot to subvert U.S.; actual meeting underwhelming and unsubstantive by all appearances, organized by oddball music publicist, etc. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-17/trump-s-russia-collusion-depends-on-your-expectations
- Nonexistent link between Wikileaks and Russia/Guccifer2. Assange has stated unequivocally source was not a state actor. (link)
- The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to Russian hacking were not conclusive regarding Wikileaks (link)
- If special counsel were interested in finding the facts, why make no effort to speak to the actual publisher of the leaks?
- If the publisher claims to have proof going one way or the other, why not bother to look at it? (link)
- Audio of Seymour Hersh discussing Seth Rich/Wikileaks. Not saying it's necessarily what happened, but it is a thing so
. (link)
- Oversaw heinous abuses of power, storied history of coverups from Boston to FBI, prosecuted whistleblowers, general incompetence, liar. Confirmed deep state scum: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/conflicts-of-interest-and-ethics-robert-mueller-and_us_5936a148e4b033940169cdc8
- Literally indicted a bunch of facebook posters
- Clear destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, immunity deals tossed out like candy, 'first precedent' investigative practice, laughably narrow angle of proving "intent," zero prosecution.
- Soon after Clinton’s defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. “Within 24 hours of her concession speech,” the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta “assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.” (link)
- Implicated in Russian bribery plot unearthed by FBI: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration
- "Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over twenty percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over one hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her after that statement." -Clinton's own internal polling (link).
- Again, just personal editorializing: the billion dollars of influence riding on Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't just go away when Trump became president. The global geopolitical goals of several transnational corps and billionaires alike had plans inline with a Clinton presidency, certainly some which would go hand in hand with a belligerent policy toward Russia, regime change in Syria, etc.
- Obama, to his credit, mostly downplayed the Russian threat. On his way out of office, without much reason to care about conforming to national security orthodoxy and perhaps indulge an adversarial approach to Russia he felt was destructive, he shrugged off concerns over Russian hacking. It wasn't until Donald Trump won the election that the narrative really shifted and diplomats were expelled. So I don't think it's an Obama conspiracy. And I wouldn't say credulously it's necessarily a Hillary conspiracy. But there's no denying the Clinton camp had a hand in pushing the narrative (dossier, crowdstrike attribution, post-defeat Russian excuse world tour, etc.).
-Not one of the indictments appears to have anything to do with collusion.
-Most of the 'insidious' interactions between Trump admin and Russian officials are more easily explained by general corruption (as opposed to some sort of election collusion), some by just basic run-of-the-mill diplomacy. Some of the interactions, as with the Flynn case, are explained by collusion with Israel (getting a UN vote in Israel's favor, which Russia declined).
I know most will disagree. Fact is, I don't know what happened or why it happened. But in the meantime, in lieu of something concrete proving otherwise, consider me unconvinced.
Here's some of my favorite links from the past year:
What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Russian Hacking
Russia's Plot to Make America Racist
Moderate Rebels Podcast // Puppy memes & Pokemon: How Russiagate went off the rails, with Aaron Maté (Ep. 8)
Russiagate is Excuse for Democratic Party Failure
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
super double secret operation
Lmfao.......wheres flounder??? Super double secret.....hahahahahaha
sho nuff
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
There's obviously a ton of stuff I disagree with here, and I think this post would be better off in the other thread instead of this one since you're arguing against Russian hacking and Trump-Russia collusion rather than for the Obama/Clinton/FBI conspiracy that is supposed to be the subject of this thread.
But just on this one particular point, even if you are correct that the subject of these meetings was either generic non-election-related corruption or run of the mill diplomacy:
1. Wouldn't engaging in what you call "general corruption" with agents of the Russian government compromise the integrity of the administration because they could be blackmailed by that government?
2. If some of the meetings were basic run of the mill diplomacy, why risk criminal liability by lying about the existence of those meetings and conceal them from federal agents and risk criminal liability? If you have to cover up the "general corruption" meetings, fine, but saying you've had no meetings at all is a lie that's much easier to uncover. Sorry, that just doesn't make a lick of sense to me and is certainly not the Occam's Razor explanation.
Rush thinks it's because people are getting closeDitka Butkus
Footballguy
Exactly!......Which also brings Bill Clinton into this.....We have no idea what their 45 minute conversation on June 27, 2016 really covered.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
1. Sure, it could do that. But in the context of the huge collusion story between Trump/Russia/Wikileaks, it doesn't really prove the accusation that they played some sort of hand in that. I don't think anyone doubts Trump has been involved with some sort of money laundering/financial crimes. Frankly I'd be surprised if he wasn't. But that doesn't really justify the impact Russiagate has had on society, which has entailed a lot of destructive consequences.
2. I don't know why they lied. My guess is one, they are dishonest anyway, but two, more likely scared of the forthcoming #### show that would come if they acknowledged any sort of Russian contacts at the time. There was a #### show anyway of course, but I can kind of understand why they'd lie.
On a side, there appears to be some confusion and contradicting statements over the Flynn interview. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-05-11 CEG to DOJ FBI (Flynn Transcript).pdf
Skoo
Footballguy
Yep, no agenda here.
Mueller is confirmed "deep state scum", and the interaction between the Trump admin and Russia is "easily explained by general corruption".
Yep, no agenda here.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I really enjoy the logic behind "We don't know what Bill said to Loretta Lynch during those 45 minutes", or "We don't know what Hillary said in those Goldman Sachs speeches", or "We don't know what Hillary said in all of those deleted emails."
Because, you know, sneaky people only do sneaky things when we know about them.
Because, you know, sneaky people only do sneaky things when we know about them.
sho nuff
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
He told Lynch to go back in time, approve that Russian broad's visa to trick Trump Jr to meet with her.
ren hoek
Footballguy
I was being facetious. I know people want a tinfoil deep state stereotype to make fun of / argue with. Lighten up
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Just to be clear here, your position is that discovering whether the President of the United States is a felon and whether a foreign adversary has proof of this that it can use to manipulate the President doesn’t “justify the impact Russiagate has had on our society”?ren hoek said:
Is that an accurate paraphrase of your position?
Also can you detail the “destructive consequences” to which you refer?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Sorry but I don’t understand why the Deep State hates Trump. He’s pro-torture, belligerent, loves to wave his nukes around, hires John Bolton, likes Pompeo... what’s not love for a Deep Stater?ren hoek said:
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The whole post is thoughtful and I’m sure took a lot of effort and deserves to be addressed, and I apologize that I dont have the time to do so. But in addition to my previous post these two jumped out as obvious nonsense.ren hoek said:
1. The main driver of Trump-Russia links- by a country mile- is the behavior of Trump and his administration and campaign with respect to basically everything Russia and/or election integrity and cyber security. The lies, the denials, the secret meetings, the inexplicable policy changes, etc etc etc. They couldn’t possibly be acting more guilty. For all your work this behavior is still largely unexplained, which to your credit you admit.
But even setting that aside, this is very inaccurate and misleading. The Steele research was originally paid for by a conservative publication- were they in on the conspiracy with Clinton? Why leave them out/lie about the financing for the report? And did the Crowdstrike report even mention Trump? I thought it just concluded that Russia was behind the hacking.
2. You have absolutely no way to know what the special counsel has and has not done and why. This point is very silly, and IMO its inclusion of which says far more about your biases than anyone else’s.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
If imagined holding a huge magnifying glass and wearing a houndstooth deerstalker hat, yes.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
No, I don't think it would justify it. I didn't say that it (evidence of corruption) couldn't theoretically be used to blackmail the presidency. Just that it has nothing to do with Wikileaks, which was the original basis of 'Russian interference.' It's caused an incredible psychological break that I think is really unhealthy.
I'm referring to much of the country being spellbound from all rationality by the idea the executive branch is controlled by Russia, when it really isn't. People have compared these email leaks to 9/11, Pearl Harbor. Doesn't that seem harmful? What about the war on dissent? This naked McCarthyism? How many times have I been accused of being a Putin lackey? It's crazy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
A criminal investigation should not be based on how it plays in the media. Not in America, at least.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Thanks, it'd been something I'd been toying with for a few weeks.
1. I think the reason they are acting guilty is because they ARE guilty. Of a bunch of unrelated stuff they don't want people to look at. The question then becomes, do the ends justify the means? Well if the means encompass reviving a sort of red fever on completely irrational grounds- when there are TONS of legitimate avenues for opposing Trump which don't require going down this road- I think not. You have to think about the endgame too, which is basically just President Pence.
2. I don't know what all the special counsel has, but WL has stated his office has made no effort to contact them. I just think that's unconscionable given that they obviously should have helpful information one way or the other. Why not communicate with the publisher for information on the source? At least to corroborate what he thinks he already has. It just seems like Crowdstrike, again, run by a former deputy of his, has been taken at face value when it already has a history of false attribution. And that there is tons of evidence suggesting there are other possible explanations for the Wikileaks release, most of which have been expressly ignored. I don't deny having bias though.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Except people already think this because of the hacks and all the shady behavior and attacks on law enforcement by the President, which would take dozens of pages to document. So if anything the probe has value in that, if you are correct, the tens of millions of people with reasonale suspicions will be reassured when they find there is no collusion or kompromat.
In other words the argument against the probe is actually an argument for it. The consequences you describe would not just exist in its absence but would actually be far more significant.
And for what it’s worth, maybe people would stop calling you a Putin lackey if you stopped saying things you can’t possibly know for sure. Like for example saying the executive branch isn’t compromised. Just a thought!
badmojo1006
Footballguy
This thread has gone on 4 pages?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Conspiracy theories are a rich tapestry. Just wait till we get to the “Stevie Wonder isn’t really blind” one.
moleculo
Footballguy
Let's talk about the dirty dossier for a minute. This was commissioned by HRC as opposotion research, none of which had been (publicly verified).
The Deep State really wanted to use the dossier. They needed a way to get it out there. I mean, one doesn't just hand over a self-sourced, unclassified, research paper to the press, especially before the election.
Instead, the Deep State needed to wait until after the election, when Steele gave it to noted Deep Stater (and 2008 GOP presidential candidate) John McCain, who have it to James Clapper who gave it to Comey. Comey took it to Trump, which made it news worthy, which allowed Clapper to call CNN (who later gave Clapper a job), and CNN broke the news of the Dossiers existence.
The dossier was later used to surveil former staffer Carter Page, thereby fulfilling Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped (despite the fact that Page had left the campaign ~4 months before the dossier was released).
The Deep State really wanted to use the dossier. They needed a way to get it out there. I mean, one doesn't just hand over a self-sourced, unclassified, research paper to the press, especially before the election.
Instead, the Deep State needed to wait until after the election, when Steele gave it to noted Deep Stater (and 2008 GOP presidential candidate) John McCain, who have it to James Clapper who gave it to Comey. Comey took it to Trump, which made it news worthy, which allowed Clapper to call CNN (who later gave Clapper a job), and CNN broke the news of the Dossiers existence.
The dossier was later used to surveil former staffer Carter Page, thereby fulfilling Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped (despite the fact that Page had left the campaign ~4 months before the dossier was released).
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think this is correct. I think the sequence of events was: (1) The Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. (2) Trump locked up the Republican nomination and The Washington Free Beacon stopped funding the Fusion GPS effort. (3) The DNC and the Clinton campaign, through Perkins Coie, took over the payments to Fusion GPS to continue its opposition research on Trump. (4) Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele's firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to investigate Trump's business dealings in Russia.
I think (4) came after (2) and (3).
Last edited by a moderator:
saintfool
Dead sexy
Right. Why would the Deep State help HRC actually *win* the election? Nope, it's better to do it after their preferred candidate loses.
moleculo
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
adonis
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
There are plenty of folks buying into and supporting these Deep State conspiracies. So sure, we need to take them seriously. This thread, to me, is a way to categorize and possibly understand their stance. It may seem a bit tongue-in-cheek but, I do want to understand their logic even if I believe it's flawed.
adonis
Footballguy
This stuff is akin to trying to understand how branch davidians were brainwashed, or why the Peoples Temple folks drank poison under the influence of a charismatic liar.
These folks are being brainwashed.
This is completely different in nature from a genuine disagreement over conclusions from facts. So much of this is built on lies.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
adonis
Footballguy
Sadly, they don't seem to care that they believe lies. They just pivot to Hillary, or innuendo, or "both sides are guilty" or another talking point.
To me, the solution isn't to argue with the brainwashed, unless you enjoy that sort of thing. It's to get out and canvas for folks who will change the situation.
As long as we have a foreign object in our body, pumping poison into the bloodstream, treating the symptoms will only get us exhausted, frustrated, and annoyed. We need to remove the source from a position where damage can no longer be done, and then start to repair the body.
Make no mistake, our country is sick...very sick. Look no further than school shootings as an example, or the rhetoric from our POTUS, or the mere fact that someone of his base character can be voted into office. We have huge problems, and arguing over factual points about a conspiracy theory that simply serves to deflect guilt from POTUS seems an incredible waste of time, imo.
Dedfin
Footballguy
I think it's time to move on from these people. It's time to win, not figure out how to assuage their hurt feelings. We can drag them kicking and screaming into civilization if that's what it takes.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
You are probably correct adonis, it may be a waste of time. I'm not attempting to argue with them either. For me, I'd like to try to understand. I find this Deep State narrative ludicrous and I'm appalled that people actually believe this crap. I want to understand why. Yes, I likely already know the answer.
Not all threads are for everyone and possibly this thread isn't for you. No offense intended adonis.
Not all threads are for everyone and possibly this thread isn't for you. No offense intended adonis.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
You left out the part where 4) was a direct consequence of what they'd found in 2) and 3). They hired Steele in the first place because they'd already found so much alarming material related to Russia and felt like they needed someone capable of exploring those links further.
adonis
Footballguy
None taken. Just wanted to mention another alternative to arguing with the brainwashed, and I talk to myself as much as anyone else. I fight plenty of ibattles and have been convinced it's mostly a waste of time. If I really want to make a difference, it's not done by arguing with folks who don't care about truth...it's done by engaging in the process.
Too many folks are pulled into a virtual democracy, while our real democracy is crumbling.
Similar threads
