It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help me understand the Russian Collusion angle.

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


From your source:



"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!


edit on 7-8-2017 by Jonjonj because: Words




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


From your source:



"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


So why are the people outraged over Trump Jr.s meeting even more outraged about Republicans and Democrats PAYING (which there is no proof of Trump jr. paying the russian lawyer) a company possibly working with Russians?


There are clear differences here:

1. There's nothing, so far anyway, connecting the Clinton campaign to Fusion GPS or the DNC (the organization) to Fusion GPS, at least in regards to the Trump oppo research and the hiring of Orbis and subsequent dossier. On the other hand, we have an email to Donald J Trump saying that he's going to information straight from the Kremlin who is looking to help his father's campaign.


Thats fine. But lets have an investigation into just who at the DNC pushed for this dossier. No need for Hillary to be connected for it to be shady.

We do however have proof that Hillarys team was working with Ukraine for info on Trump. Why isn't this just as big of a deal?


2. There's nothing so far that substantiates that the dossier was in anyway a deliberate product of the Kremlin. The goods promised to Trump were said to be straight from the Russian government, again, as part of their efforts to help Donald Trump.


Just because the goods were promised, there is no proof any was delivered. As long as Trump jr didn't promise anything in return or that info wasn't obtained illegally by the Kremlin, whats the issue?

Its seems totally plausible that Trump jr. thought they might tell him that Hillary improperly dealt with the Kremlin, and he would have taken that info to the FBI.

But there was no info given, unlike the dossier that was actually paid for and produced. So if we can question the hypothetical info that could have possibly been given to Trump jr. but wasn't why is it unfair to question the actual info that was paid for and delivered to people.

As far as far as the dossier info coming directly from the Kremlin, does it matter if its directly from them, or from an agency that they are paying? Does that mean that unless Putin directly ordered the hack on the DNC, and instead it was a freelancer working on behalf of Russia, we can't blame the Russians?


3. Team Trump has been categorically denying any coordination with Russia all along and that's putting it mildly. We now know that at the very least, this meeting happened. They even tried to lie about as they were claiming to come clean by once more pretending the meeting was about adoptions.



There have been lies. But Kushner disclosed the meeting. And this meeting was not coordination with Russia. For some reason, when it comes to the Trump dossier, you need proof that it was ordered by the Kremlin.

Yet here you assume without any proof that I am aware of that Veslinskya (I can't spell her name) was a Kremlin agent. Why the double standard?



This is all subject to change. What was the timeline of the hiring of Steele? AFAIK, there was nothing in either the DNC emails or the Podesta emails about Fusion GPS, Orbis (Steele), etc.


I will look it up, but I think it was definitely before the election was over. Whih means those paying for it sought to use the info against their political opponent.




Do we know that there *is* a double standard as far as the the investigation goes? I know the congressional committees subpoenaed Glenn Simpson. I also read the other day that the House Intel committee was trying to track down Steele. I would assume that Mueller and his team are all over it. It wouldn't make sense not to investigate what Fusion GPS was up to.


Lets assume you are right, and Mueller is investigating it. Don't you find it suspicious that no one has leaked details of that, and yet details about the investigation into trump and his team are leaked all of the time?

The double standard is evident from a media and public relations point of view.

What would happen if Kushner or someone else refused to testify even if subpoenaed? People would be screaming guilt.

Yet Fusion Gps refuses. Where is the outrage? Where is the media demanding investigations into those that paid for it?

But I hope you are right that Mueller is looking into it.
edit on 7-8-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


From your source:



"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


But that is completely irrelevant to the issue! The issue is that since Trump was elected he has been crucified by the majority of the media when the people who have been able to confirm/deny have left him out there, in the wind, to swing.

It is just wrong, regardless of political persuasion and personal feelings.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


Thanks for that.

Well clearly they didn't give everything they requested, because Comey said they requested to see the actual server.

So one of the two are lying.

And I don't think a copy would include everything on the original, but could be wrong.

In fact, if the copy is the EXACT same, why wouldn't they just leave the FBI see the actual server?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


From your source:



"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


Also keep in mind that Crowdstrike made this exact same argument, that the digital fingerprint showed a russian hack, in the Ukraine, and they were wrong.

The FBI didn't get to see the actual evidence, they relied on crowdstrikes interpretation.

Again, there was no good reason for the FBI to not have access to the actual evidence.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The fact that Trump and crew have lied about having been any involvement with Russia makes me mistrust them. Why are people people so blissfully blind to the wrongdoing of Trump. He's a professional liar and manipulator, that's what made him successful in the corporate world. You can't trust a man with 2 backs.....



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


Thanks for that.

Well clearly they didn't give everything they requested, because Comey said they requested to see the actual server.

So one of the two are lying.

And I don't think a copy would include everything on the original, but could be wrong.

In fact, if the copy is the EXACT same, why wouldn't they just leave the FBI see the actual server?


I can tell you exactly why, and it has nothing to do with the data.

It is because a physically altered system is impossible to hide, you can scrub data but you can't scrub screwdriver scratches, unforseen fingerprints etc...


edit on 7-8-2017 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


From your source:



"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


Also keep in mind that Crowdstrike made this exact same argument, that the digital fingerprint showed a russian hack, in the Ukraine, and they were wrong.

The FBI didn't get to see the actual evidence, they relied on crowdstrikes interpretation.

Again, there was no good reason for the FBI to not have access to the actual evidence.


I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it.

I would think the crowdstrike analysis would have included all the relevant data from the server: IP addresses, logfiles, command profiles, etc. etc. I say this because without those details, there literally would be nothing to the report. A report on something like this is usually 50% hard details of the attack and 50% analysis, based on my experience. And the analysis makes little sense without the supporting details.
edit on 7-8-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
The fact that Trump and crew have lied about having been any involvement with Russia makes me mistrust them. Why are people people so blissfully blind to the wrongdoing of Trump. He's a professional liar and manipulator, that's what made him successful in the corporate world. You can't trust a man with 2 backs.....


Go read the DNC Wikileaks.

It is ok, contrary to what CNN said, it is NOT illegal.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5




I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it. 


This isn't the point at all.

The point is...****drum roll****...

Why the actual F*** were they allowed to not hand them over?

What????




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.


From your source:



"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


Also keep in mind that Crowdstrike made this exact same argument, that the digital fingerprint showed a russian hack, in the Ukraine, and they were wrong.

The FBI didn't get to see the actual evidence, they relied on crowdstrikes interpretation.

Again, there was no good reason for the FBI to not have access to the actual evidence.


I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it.

I would think the crowdstrike analysis would have included all the relevant data from the server: IP addresses, logfiles, command profiles, etc. etc. I say this because without those details, there literally would be nothing to the report. A report on something like this is usually 50% hard details of the attack and 50% analysis, based on my experience. And the analysis makes little sense without the supporting details.


Forget about why the DNC wouldn't hand it over for a minute (which is a great question that no one had provided an answer for).

Why didn't the FBI demand to see it?

Comey admitted in his testimony that it is always preferable to have access to the physical server. Everyone acknowledges this is one of the biggest cases the FBI has ever dealt with.

So why not use the most preferential method? Biggest political scandal in the history of the country, with the idea that are very leader may be a russian agent, and the FBI says "Screw it. We won't use our best methods, we will just rely on a third party".

Its unbelievable.

And keep in mind, Crowdstrike was wrong in the Ukraine. They only sent the FBI what THEY thought was relevant. Perhaps they missed something.

Its the equivalent of a person getting killed on a companies property, and the companies security takes details pictures and analysis of the body, and provides that to the FBI, but won't let them see the body.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Dudemo5




I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it. 


This isn't the point at all.

The point is...****drum roll****...

Why the actual F*** were they allowed to not hand them over?

What????



Bam! You beat me to it!



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Dudemo5




I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it. 


This isn't the point at all.

The point is...****drum roll****...

Why the actual F*** were they allowed to not hand them over?

What????



Bam! You beat me to it!



That's because I deal in soundbytes and you deal in explication. I prefer your method, but I am lazy and far too stupid.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Dudemo5




I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it. 


This isn't the point at all.

The point is...****drum roll****...

Why the actual F*** were they allowed to not hand them over?

What????



An excellent point - and with the news today that Comey lied in his testimony when he said there was no documentation regarding the Clinton/Lynch meeting, one has to wonder if he has been hiding some truths and what did and has come out is the tip of the iceberg that he couldn't hold back.

The fact that he allowed the DNC to dictate the terms of his investigation is troubling to say the least.
edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


No need for Hillary to be connected for it to be shady.


But if she is connected to Fusion GPS, does that not make things a bit shadier? Especially if said connections can be traced back decades.

Vasa Croe has found such linkage, as detailed in the following thread.

PROMIS Inslaw Clinton Systematics FusionGPS all related...is this the missing link?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



wow, who's being a partisan douche now? I distinctly mentioned the RNC as well as the DNC, as they both paid for this information. Foreign entities were involved and unlike the Trump Jr. case, money was exchanged and dirt was given.


Again, there was a degree of separation. FusionGPS was hired by a US law firm. The identity of whom the US law firm was working for would probably not have been mentioned to FusionGPS due to attorney-client privilege. OR so that is how I understand it. I could be wrong.



You can want to have it both ways, but it won't work. Never will.


There is no need to have it both ways. The two situations are not comparable.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler


No need for Hillary to be connected for it to be shady.


But if she is connected to Fusion GPS, does that not make things a bit shadier? Especially if said connections can be traced back decades.

Vasa Croe has found such linkage, as detailed in the following thread.

PROMIS Inslaw Clinton Systematics FusionGPS all related...is this the missing link?


Oh it is definitely shadier. And thanks for that link, I will check it out.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



wow, who's being a partisan douche now? I distinctly mentioned the RNC as well as the DNC, as they both paid for this information. Foreign entities were involved and unlike the Trump Jr. case, money was exchanged and dirt was given.


Again, there was a degree of separation. FusionGPS was hired by a US law firm. The identity of whom the US law firm was working for would probably not have been mentioned to FusionGPS due to attorney-client privilege. OR so that is how I understand it. I could be wrong.



You can want to have it both ways, but it won't work. Never will.


There is no need to have it both ways. The two situations are not comparable.


So as long as you put some degrees of separation in there, all is well?
Perhaps the Trump administration will learn to be as devious as the Democrats and Neocons... then you'll be happy.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Show me proof Vesilnyskya was working for the Kremlin.


I cannot provide that proof. That is for the investigators to find. Again, I am only speculating based on what I have read and have not said my speculation was fact.



Explain to me why this degree of separation matter?


Because it shows that FusionGPS was not working directly for Russia.



Are you claiming then that it would be ok for Trump to hire a law firm to get dirt on Hillary that is directly being paid by Russia? Thats absurd.


That's not comparable to what happened here.



The real differnece is that while you have a bunch of hypotheticals about what may have been promised between Trump jr. and the Russian lawyer, we have proof that DNC people PAID an organization that was actively working on behalf of Russian interests, and in turn received dirt on their political opponent.


They were working on behalf of a US law firm. That is an important distinction.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join