SethRich.info New website + will Mueller declare states secrets?

What is gullible is you falling for these absurd now-on-the-left neo-McCarthy claims.

What's your evidence?

Wikileaks was the one that released the leaks... Of course, they could be lying like anyone but that's just another strident assertion without evidence. Literally everything you've said on this thread to me could be mirrored back to the Russian narrative.

I'll say it again, to an objective person a vast Russian conspiracy, including Wikileaks lying, is less likely than a disillusioned dnc staffer or politico leaking if, even if it wasn't Seth rich. Occam's razor.

People only think it was the Russians because Cnn told them that. Where's your skepticism?.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The conclusion crowdstrike made on the Ukraine uses the exact same method for russia hacking the DNC. You are telling us their analysis failed on ukraine, which they did retract adnd update, but somehow worked for the DNC hack?

I'm telling you what was reported in the articles you posted. They are conservative sources too so I'm sure they'd JUMP at the opportunity to print Crowdstrike retracting all of their evidence, but they didn't. That tells me more than your wild speculation does.

As for leaks we can use that as further evidence the Trump-Russia collusion is fabricated bs. Everything under the sun has leaked about the investigation except for actual proof.

Yet the investigation keeps intensifying. I hear it is involving Kushner now because he tried to open backdoor channels to Russia using Russian equipment WHILE Obama was still President and he was still a private citizen. You can try to bury your head in the sand and pretend there is nothing to see here, but all you are doing is lying to yourself.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Where's your skepticism?.

I'd say it is clearly on display against this wild CT with zero evidence supporting it.

PS: Occam's Razor says it is the Russians not the DNC... Believing it was the DNC suggests that the DNC isn't American and trying to subvert our country which is a HUGE assumption. Meanwhile the Russians have historically been antagonistic to our country. It is FAR more likely they are the culprits using Occam's Razor (the idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the real one) and all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Didn't read this did ya?

Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian Hacker

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Didn't read this did ya?

Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian Hacker

So why should I believe a random website on the internet? Do you want to all but tell me that you are fueling your confirmation bias here? That site has zero credibility.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Crowdstrike retracted their assessment on Ukraine because it was debunked. They used the exact same method to arrive at their russia conclusion. How is it possible to be wrong on one assessment (ukraine) and not wrong on the other (Russia) while using the exact same, flawed, method?

The intelligence community based its assessment off of crowdstrikes report and Comey testified to that at one of the hearings.


The investigation is not intensifying. You guys need to learn the difference between "target of an investigation" and requesting information for clarifications, which is exactly whats occurring with Kushner.

The backdoor channel is not illegal and is used by Presidents. Obama used his backdoor channel with Iran for the nuke deal. Kennedy used 2 backdoor channels with the USSR to defuse the missile crisis. Finally the backdoor channels were suggested by the Russians to Kushner and not the other way around.

I find it sad you guys are unable to think for yourself and actually research claims to see if they are accurate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Didn't read this did ya?

Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian Hacker

So why should I believe a random website on the internet? Do you want to all but tell me that you are fueling your confirmation bias here? That site has zero credibility.

Not asking you to 'believe' in it. I am asking you to look at evidence and facts.

Why do you say it has zero credibility do you know anything about it?

Leaping to conclusions like you usually do.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for posting that.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Crowdstrike retracted their assessment on Ukraine. They used the exact same method to arrive at their russia conclusion. How is it possible to be wrong on one assessment (ukraine) and not wrong on the other (Russia) while using the exact same, flawed, method?

How is it possible that you are saying things that aren't reported? Again, even your sources aren't saying that data was retracted. You just want to desperately believe so you are twisting it to say that.

The investigation is not intensifying. You guys need to learn the difference between "target of an investigation" and requesting information for clarifications, which is exactly whats occurring with Kushner.

Uh... Yes... The appointment of Mueller and the investigation shifting to a criminal probe is DEFINITELY an intensification.

The backdoor channel is not illegal and is used by Presidents. Obama used his backdoor channel with Iran for the nuke deal. Kennedy used 2 backdoor channels with the USSR to defuse the missile crisis. Finally the backdoor channels were suggested by the Russians to Kushner and not the other way around.

Obama didn't use backdoor channels with Russian equipment though. Also prove your claim about the Russians. What I've read is that they were reportedly shocked that Kushner even suggested it in the first place.

I find it sad you guys are unable to think for yourself and actually research claims to see if they are accurate.

Lol. Says the guy making # up that wasn't reported.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Didn't read this did ya?

Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian Hacker

So why should I believe a random website on the internet? Do you want to all but tell me that you are fueling your confirmation bias here? That site has zero credibility.

Not asking you to 'believe' in it. I am asking you to look at evidence and facts.

Why do you say it has zero credibility do you know anything about it?

Leaping to conclusions like you usually do.

Because it is a random website on the internet. Any idiot can register a domain and post stuff to it. That doesn't mean it is legit.

It might be "interesting" to look at the financials of CrowdStrike, the shareholders, Board members, the government connections, and the tangled web of government/private access to data sharing. Obama made some big changes to that aspect when he was in....especially that gawd-awful second term when he really kicked his machine in high gear.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Didn't read this did ya?

Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian Hacker

So why should I believe a random website on the internet? Do you want to all but tell me that you are fueling your confirmation bias here? That site has zero credibility.

Not asking you to 'believe' in it. I am asking you to look at evidence and facts.

Why do you say it has zero credibility do you know anything about it?

Leaping to conclusions like you usually do.

Because it is a random website on the internet. Any idiot can register a domain and post stuff to it. That doesn't mean it is legit.

Doesn't mean it's not legit either does it?
Bury your head in the sand and continue not to look at it, it's what you do best.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
How is it possible that you are saying things that aren't reported? Again, even your sources aren't saying that data was retracted. You just want to desperately believe so you are twisting it to say that.

ooook...
Crowdstrike - Danger Close: Fancy Bear Tracking of Ukrainian Field Artillery Units

Update – As of March 2017, the estimated losses of D-30 howitzer platform have been amended. According to an update provided by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Research Associate for Defence and Military Analysis, Henry Boyd, their current assessment is as follows: “excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.”

***PDF LINK*** - USE OF FANCY BEAR ANDROID MALWARE IN TRACKING OF UKRAINIAN FIELD ARTILLERY UNITS PUBLISHED DECEMBER 22, 2016UPDATED MARCH 23, 2017

The conclusion crowdstrike reached on Ukraine, the method they used to determine "russia hacked" Ukraine systems was based on false / wrong information. They used that same method / information to reach their conclusion on Russia hacking the DNC.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Uh... Yes... The appointment of Mueller and the investigation shifting to a criminal probe is DEFINITELY an intensification.

Actually its not. Its a continuation of the original investigation with Meuller overseeing it. However, as I stated and you ignored, there is a difference between being a "target of an investigation" and being asked to answer clarifying questions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Obama didn't use backdoor channels with Russian equipment though. Also prove your claim about the Russians. What I've read is that they were reportedly shocked that Kushner even suggested it in the first place.

Obama did in fact use back door channel with Iran. He used Former US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who led the secret US diplomacy with Iran.
* - Former Top Diplomat: First Year of Iran Deal Is Vital
* - Exclusive: Burns led secret US back channel to Iran

No one was shocked about the backdoor communications except for the left wing media who is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. All Presidents have used back channel communications... Kennedy, Obama, T. Roosevelt (his wife and Japan) etc.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Lol. Says the guy making # up that wasn't reported.

Except it was.. you just failed to read it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just curious, we have FISA documents and the ACLU condemning Obama for his spying on US citizens, including trump associates, in the lead up to the election.

Are you only concerned about foriegn influence into our elections, or does a sitting president using the IC to help influence an election concern you as well?

And unlike the russian collusion story where we only have anonymous sources, we actually have FISA coourt documents to prove Obama''s shadiness.

But for some reason you seem unconcerned about this.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I just wanted to point something out here real quick.

The poster to whom you are replying is adamant against using YouTube as a valid source.

The Crowdstrike report being referenced here has the following on its source page:

7-www.youtube.com...

This should invalidate the entire report (and thus the ones who generated it) according to the logic of the poster to whom you are replying.

a reply to: Grambler

The biggest Pysop ever???

Wow; simply amazing

...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: iWontGiveUP

This vid has some very important dots connected with Hillary / Soros /and Ukraine The documentation leaves no room for conjecture and deals with Government documents and Govt. sources

This video is pure gold, it connects a lot of dots.

This is the way journalism should be practiced, you don't have to take his word for anything but i have yet to find the guy wrong on anything.

Tomicah Tillemann, TechCamps, and Bretton Woods 2, George Soros, all tied in.

originally posted by: Kettu
Let's see...

Obama birth certificate...

Benghazi....

Hillary's emails...

Pizza-whatever....

Well, you conservatives don't exactly have the best track record at delivering with your conspiracies.

*yawn*

Wake me up when something claimed actually results in things like indictments, subpoenas, convictions, ect....

And you wonder why media,journalism and U.S. government trust levels are so bad.Obviously these should have been huge stories.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Where's your skepticism?.

I'd say it is clearly on display against this wild CT with zero evidence supporting it.

PS: Occam's Razor says it is the Russians not the DNC... Believing it was the DNC suggests that the DNC isn't American and trying to subvert our country which is a HUGE assumption. Meanwhile the Russians have historically been antagonistic to our country. It is FAR more likely they are the culprits using Occam's Razor (the idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the real one) and all.

You are too smart for this response, and are grasping at straws.

1) I have no idea what you mean that a leak would be "trying to subvert our country." THAT is a huge assumption. In fact, given the nature of the leaks, and material, showing the DNC basically trying to rig the primaries against Bernie, demonstrates that the DNC IS a corrupt institution and that the leaks are actually patriotic. The emails were the DNC, the leaks were by someone either within who was disillusioned or external.

The DNC and RNC aren't trying to subvert our country for external partners, but instead they are puppets for an oligarchic elite. They DO subvert the principles of real democracy or elections. Our government is run by and for the powerful and wealthy.

2) You already buy that the RNC or related operatives are corrupt and anti-US, via their alleged corruption with Russia and re the election. So then is this partisanship, where only conservatives engage in conspiracies or election tampering?

To me it seems like you still believe in the Democrat Party's leadership. I stopped that a long time ago, when Obama and Clinton regime changed Libya.

3) You just made up a bunch of assumptions re a DNC leaker. When those are taken away, it's clear that the Russian narrative is a much larger conspiracy that requires far more assumptions and individuals involved. It is the less likely scenario, even though it's possible.