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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: UKTruth

I agree - you must be terminally confused to read those charts and come to a conclusion about a crime being committed in the Trump Jr meeting, or indeed come to any conclusion about evidence of collusion to influence an election.

Nice charts though - quite amusing that someone actually created them. I wonder have they done some similar charts for all US business men and politicians.?


As to the charts....

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is a parlour game based on the "six degrees of separation" concept, which posits that any two people on Earth are six or fewer acquaintance links apart.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

I don't really have an opinion on that. It seems the FBI has used them before.


Somehow I think that if the FBI announced today that they had reliable third-party information that cleared Trump of any collusion, you'd have a pretty strong opinion about it.


Especially if that 3rd Party was hired by Trump!
It's hilarious that a company hired by the DNC to support the DNC's claim would be seen as credible enough to not warrant the FBI doing their own investigation, but this is the type of silliness we're having to listen to.


Right. Keep in mind these were the same people that screamed that the DOJ should not head the collusion investigation, and that it had to be an independent investigator.

Now they would have us believe that if Trump hired a company that looked at his devices and cleared him, and the FBI in turn not only didn't look at those devices, but declared Trump innocent based on the private companies findings, they would have been ok with it.

It doesn't sound believable to me.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

They didn't choose not to use them. They chose to have an independent team analyse the data. To avoid people claiming the FBI is biased.
Come on you know that's what the story would be if they had.

Bottom line is that it was examined. By a company that was completely unbiased and unrelated and had nothing to gain by its findings.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tadaman

Bottom line is that it was examined. By a company that was completely unbiased and unrelated and had nothing to gain by its findings.

Well for one they gained a fat paycheck from the DNC. I assume they are most likely still on the payroll too.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61

Do they?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Oh ok so again if you're wrong about one thing you're wrong about everything.
On what planet is that logical?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: UKTruth

I agree - you must be terminally confused to read those charts and come to a conclusion about a crime being committed in the Trump Jr meeting, or indeed come to any conclusion about evidence of collusion to influence an election.

Nice charts though - quite amusing that someone actually created them. I wonder have they done some similar charts for all US business men and politicians.?


As to the charts....

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is a parlour game based on the "six degrees of separation" concept, which posits that any two people on Earth are six or fewer acquaintance links apart.


Exactly - it's a crazy exercise aimed at those who want to believe.
On linkedin I have over 1m people connected in some way to Russia in my network - and hilariously this includes 133 people in the Russian govt. That is only down to the 3rd degree network, lol.
I am sure I'd be connected to Putin himself with 6 degrees of separation.
edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tadaman

They didn't choose not to use them. They chose to have an independent team analyse the data. To avoid people claiming the FBI is biased.
Come on you know that's what the story would be if they had.

Bottom line is that it was examined. By a company that was completely unbiased and unrelated and had nothing to gain by its findings.


except that the DNC is who paid them. You know, other than that.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Oh ok so again if you're wrong about one thing you're wrong about everything.
On what planet is that logical?


No, if you so spectacularly wrong on multiple occasions as the US IC have been, only a fool would believe them without any proof.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tadaman

They didn't choose not to use them. They chose to have an independent team analyse the data. To avoid people claiming the FBI is biased.
Come on you know that's what the story would be if they had.

Bottom line is that it was examined. By a company that was completely unbiased and unrelated and had nothing to gain by its findings.


I am sorry but this line of thought is ridiculous.

You are actually claiming that the FBI inetentionally didn't look at the evidence because they would have been considered biased, so instead they blamed Russia without seeing the evidence and that is supposed to make us think they are less biased?

That is an amazing claim.

As far as crowdstrike not being biased, the were hired by the DNC.

And there is this.


1. Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC

In April 2016, two months before the June report that alleged a Russian conspiracy, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike, to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.

CrowdStrike co-founder George Kurtz said at the time, “We wish Steve and the rest of the Commissioners every success in this important effort. Their dedicated and thoughtful leadership on these issues holds great potential for promoting innovation and the benefits of technology, while lowering the very real security risks we are facing today.”

...

4. CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire

Co-Founder and CTO of CrowdStrike Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow on the Atlantic Council.

The Atlantic Council is hawkish on Russia, previously publishing reports about topics like how the West can “get tougher” on Russia, how to “fight back Against Russian political warfare,” how to respond “to Russia’s Anti-Western Aggression.”

Other articles are titled, “From Russia with Hate: The Kremlin’s Support for Violent Extremism in Central Europe” and “Here’s Why You Should Worry About Russian Propaganda.”

In one article published by the Atlantic Council, writer Stephen Blank claims that Russia is a more urgent security threat than terrorism.

Further, the Atlantic Council is funded by NATO, enhancing the hawkish view on Russia.

The Atlantic Council is also funded by the “Open Society Initiative for Europe,” a program of leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

...

5. CrowdStrike Is Funded By Clinton-Loving Google $$

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that CrowdStrike received $100 million in investments led by Google Capital (since re-branded as CapitalG) in 2015.

CapitalG is owned by Alphabet, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet’s chairman, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. More than just supporting Clinton, leaked emails from Wikileaks in November 2016 showed that in 2014 he wanted to have an active role in the campaign.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Schmidt “sent a Clinton campaign official a lengthy memo with advice on running the campaign. He told campaign officials he was ‘ready to fund, advise recruit talent,’ and ‘clearly wants to be head outside advisor,’ according to a 2014 email from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta to campaign manager Robby Mook.”

And Politico reported in November 2016 that Schmidt “served in a personal capacity as an adviser to the Clinton operation,” and wore a “staff” badge at her election night party.


dailycaller.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Flatfish

For our POTUS, the crime will obviously be Obstruction of Justice. A crime that he has basically admitted to on more than one occasion. He's just too stupid to realize it.



Still not seeing the Trump connection. So you are connecting Sessions to Trump, when it looks like Sessions is the one who lied...not that those meetings were of anything big other than the normal operations of a Senator, and the $230 million dollar suit, ok once again it looks like all Sessions , but of course it's Trump.

You are also missing key points in all this and that part is the special relationship Natalia had with the Obama administration and DNC... but then all that doesn't fit your narrative very well, so its unimportant.


Yeah, that makes a lot of sense now doesn't it? Sessions just dropped the Prevezon Holdings case for the hell of it, right after the DOJ received favorable rulings from the courts regarding Prevezon's request for summary judgement.

Tell me, did Jeff Sessions fire Preet Bharara too?

And.....there was no "special relationship" between Natalia and the Obama administration or the DNC.

Why in the hell would she have a special relationship with the very people who enacted the very law, (the Magnitsky Act) that she is trying to get rid of?

That relationship is just a figment of your special little mind's hopeful imagination.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

They never hid the server and have repeatedly said that the FBI never asked for it. Get that in your head. They NEVER ASKED FOR IT!!!!!
They are not hiding anything. It's still available for examination and a year later the FBI still has not asked for it.
The DNC has said "here it is"...They didn't take them up on the offer.
But Crowd Strike did examine it. And that's their stock and trade .computer forensics... The fact that they are utilized the world over says it all to use your terminology.
So now what's your argument or are you going to stick to the one you're spouting here?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tadaman

They didn't choose not to use them. They chose to have an independent team analyse the data. To avoid people claiming the FBI is biased.
Come on you know that's what the story would be if they had.

Bottom line is that it was examined. By a company that was completely unbiased and unrelated and had nothing to gain by its findings.


except that the DNC is who paid them. You know, other than that.


DNC to Crowdstrike: "We want you to be completely unbiased when you examine these servers, just remember there's a big bonus for the 'right' answer".



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

So if Trump pays a similar firm to go over the data and say its all good, we are good?

Absurd.

There is NO reason why they wouldnt let the FBI go over it.

Only one we can see is because like the known digital evidence shows, there was NO remote hack.

The server could confirm or refute what is ALREADY known.

ATM, all corruption points to the DNC. They are hiding illegalities, not dirty underwear.




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



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.

www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

guess you know more than the FEC about this?


In order to be considered a "volunteer," it must be unpaid. That INCLUDES getting paid by the Russians or anyone else for the time you're said to be "volunteering."


you have proof they were paid by trump?
you have proof they were paid by russia?

no
you do not



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman


Let's remember...
The FBI said Clinton was not guilty of any crimes .
And how you feel about that...
So just what would be different if they had examined the server and said it was Russia?
You'd say they were lying, that they were biased that they were in cahoots. Tails you win heads I loose.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Your link added something new I hadnt seen that completely convinces me of my convictions.

The IP adresses linking the whole deal to Russia were Tor exit nodes......

The fact that this is how they tie this to Russia shows gross ignorance of 21st century technology and how the Tor network works.

There is ABSOLUTELY no way to link this to Russia if thats all they have to contest the impossibility of a remote download at those transfer speeds.

ESPECIALLY IF DONE THROUGH TOR!!!!!!

It would be SLOW. Very SLOW.

The connection was a USB or external hard drive, which was taken onsite, physically....by Seth just like WIIKILEAKS alludes to.

Do people get this? Tor is an onion of servers encrypting and decrypting information and bouncing it all around the world.

Even if on an open connection the recorded transfer speeds would not be possible from a remote connection. If through Tor, it would be as slow as a phone modem if the files were large enough, which they were.


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



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tadaman

They never hid the server and have repeatedly said that the FBI never asked for it. Get that in your head. They NEVER ASKED FOR IT!!!!!
They are not hiding anything. It's still available for examination and a year later the FBI still has not asked for it.
The DNC has said "here it is"...They didn't take them up on the offer.
But Crowd Strike did examine it. And that's their stock and trade .computer forensics... The fact that they are utilized the world over says it all to use your terminology.
So now what's your argument or are you going to stick to the one you're spouting here?



So then you are saying Comey lied when he said there were multiple request by diferent levels of the FBI to look at the server?


3. Comey Contradicted The DNC’s Story On The FBI Asking To See The Server

The DNC claimed in January that the reason the FBI never examined their hacked server was simple–the FBI never requested to do so. Yet, DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker gave told BuzzFeed News in an email, “The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers.”

However, this claim was contradicted by then-FBI director James Comey, who said in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January that there were “multiple requests at different levels” to look at the DNC’s servers. Instead, Comey said a “highly respected private company” got access to the servers–meaning CrowdStrike.

A senior FBI official told WIRED in January, “The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated.”

“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”

As Josephine Wolff of Slate pointed out, “…whether because they were denied access or simply never asked for it, the FBI instead used the analysis of the DNC breach conducted by security firm CrowdStrike as the basis for its investigation. Regardless of who is telling the truth about what really happened, perhaps the most astonishing thing about this probe is that a private firm’s investigation and attribution was deemed sufficient by both the DNC and the FBI.”


dailycaller.com...

Now you seemed to take Comeys word about his meetings with Trump, but now you are saying he is a bold faced liar on this.

Very strange how you can hold both of those beliefs.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Had they done so, dealt with EVIDENCE that supported their claims, I would shut up.

They did not. I thought they were the freaking FBI!!!



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join