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.

 

Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi Pushed Seth Rich Lie After Privately Admitting

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Russian hackers weren’t the ones behind the theft of Democratic emails that upended the 2016 presidential race, conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi told his InfoWars fans last year. Instead, Corsi said, Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had stolen the emails and was murdered in revenge for the heist. But Corsi was lying. In an email to Trump confidante Roger Stone in 2016, Corsi acknowledged that in fact hackers were behind the email theft, according to newly released messages.


It makes me wonder what management changes Seth's parents will bring to info wars after they own them for slander. It is very telling of the gangs motives and integrity if this is true. So many lies being uncovered in the investigation.



“Time to let more than [Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta] to be exposed as in bed with enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC,” Corsi wrote. “That appears to be the game hackers are now about.”


It reads to me as if info wars has lived up to it's name. I wonder now how much of the media narrative that has been contrived will be proven so during all this.

Anywho Have a Great Day!

www.thedailybeast.com...




Cognitive distortion - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org... The cognitive distortions listed below are categories of automatic thinking, and are to be distinguished from logical fallacies. Always being right. Being wrong is unthinkable. Blaming. Disqualifying the positive. Emotional reasoning. Fallacy of change. Fallacy of fairness. Mental filtering. Jumping to conclusions.

edit on 30-11-2018 by TheOne7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheOne7

Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheOne7

Speculation. Has it indeed been established that Russia did the hacking? The dailybeast is known for hit pieces and rarely if ever provide any proof to what is written.

How about you post the links to back up what the allegations are so that we can all have a look, and a healthy debate.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheOne7

The theory goes that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leaks while hackers were responsible for Podesta’s emails.

But the Seth Rich theory didn’t come out till much later than Corsi’s email, I believe.
edit on 30-11-2018 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
No server No case.

FBI trusted the DNC paid for contractors 😆



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Wiki Leaks has repeatedly denied that the treasure troves they released did not come from Russian sources. No investigation to my knowledge has yet to prove otherwise. It maybe the individual who did supply the information received it from Russian sources, but in very public statements it has been repeatedly denied.

It is at this junction of the investigation, that it is just as likely that a source inside the DNC or someone inside our government supplied the information to WikiLeaks. Since the investigation is really not much more than a fishing expedition, I doubt we will ever obtain clear and factual answers.

Nothing but speculation, much of it an attempt to cover over mistakes and criminal acts by other individuals who are apparently not subjects of the investigation, which appears by design. Non Disclosure Agreementd and blanket immunity deals are used to bury the whole manufactured truth.
edit on 11/30/2018 by DJMSN because: correction



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
Wiki Leaks has repeatedly denied that the treasure troves they released did not come from Russian sources. No investigation to my knowledge has yet to prove otherwise. It maybe the individual who did supply the information received it from Russian sources, but in very public statements it has been repeatedly denied.

It is at this junction of the investigation, that it is just as likely that a source inside the DNC or someone inside our government supplied the information to WikiLeaks. Since the investigation is really not much more than a fishing expedition, I doubt we will ever obtain clear and factual answers.

Nothing but speculation, much of it an attempt to cover over mistakes and criminal acts by other individuals who are apparently not subjects of the investigation, which appears by design. Non Disclosure Agreementd and blanket immunity deals are used to bury the whole manufactured truth.


Those WikiLeaks guys, known worldwide for their honesty and trustworthiness. We should definitely trust them when they deny getting their information from Russia.

Sorry, the Mueller investigation has already proven that Russia hacked the DNC and supplied that data to WikiLeaks. While the evidence to back it up is referred to in the indictment documents it is not currently available to the public. However, as with any indictment from the Mueller investigation, it must come from a grand jury. That grand jury would have been presented the evidence and made the decision whether or not to indict based on that evidence.

So just because we the public don't have the evidence the Mueller investigation does and a grand jury thought the evidence was compelling enough to sign an indictment.

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

According to Corsi, when prosecutors asked him if he’d figured it out through “divine intervention” on his flight to Italy, he said, basically, yes.


The ole divine intervention defense.

www.vox.com...

According to corsi's emails he confirmed who gathered the emails and it was rushans. Surely some remember where assange was at before he was transferred. rusha



www.washingtonpost.com... 48d55f4_story.html?utm_term=.eab2096782d3



In two major developments this week, President Trump has been labeled in the parlance of criminal investigations as a major subject of interest, complete with an opaque legal code name: “Individual 1.”


I have been scouring these articles and it has become clear that mueller knows full well and has much evidence proving that potus and gang is guilty. They clearly keep digging a deeper hole every time they tell more stories and deflect from the truth.

The saying that sometimes the cover up is much worse than the crime comes to mind. If it were me i would just come clean pardon everyone and pray for some divine intervention.







Perhaps it is time for the spray tan defense?

RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) - An active ingredient used in spray tanning may be harmful, and even cause cancer, according to the FDA. We've heard the warnings about tanning beds for years. ... Now, health professionals are concerned by the active ingredient in the spray, called Dihydroxyacetone or DHA.Jul 23, 2013
Maybe dha causes mental effects in the negative realm.


edit on 30-11-2018 by TheOne7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

"Paid For" experts.

Sure thing every time 😁



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7

Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.


Except that's complete bull# that has been repeated ad nauseam by people who don't know any better. Not only was it a craptastic analysis on its face, making wholly unsupported conclusions, the source turned out to be sketchy af.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BlackJackal

"Paid For" experts.

Sure thing every time 😁


What in buddha's ass are you even talking about? Who mentioned experts except you?



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7

Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.


I would love to see what forensic data you are referring to.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7

Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.


Is this the forensic data you are referring to? LINK

If so, I'm sorry but this does not pass even the smell test. Maybe this guy can fool people who don't understand how computer forensics actually work, but that's about it.

So the entire interruption that the data was downloaded locally and not remotely comes from this guy William Binney a former technical director for the NSA. I have no idea why this guy would lie, and maybe he isn't lying but the data he has provided as evidence of his claim is severely lacking.


Binney says the highest transfer rate was 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than possible from a remote online connection. He says some colleagues challenged this assumption and ran various tests, from the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and in the UK and he says, “The fastest rate we got was from a data center in New Jersey…to a data center in the UK and that was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the rate necessary to transfer the data, as it was listed from Guccifer 2.0…However, it is the perfect download rate for a thumb drive.” He says their findings don’t prove who did it but they do prove that the data breach was local and did not consist of an overseas hack.


Ok, so the first big read flag here is how can anyone familiar with network forensics not be able to tell the difference between network traffic (AKA remote traffic) and local USB transfers? How could he even confuse the two? They are recorded in two very different ways. Network traffic is captured by either a network device such as a gateway or a tap or an application like Wireshark. The output of that data is a PCAP file. Transfers between a USB drive and a host machine are recorded in multiple places on the host machine. None of those data stores even store transfer rates at all.



The USBSTOR located in the SYSTEM hive (SYSTEMCurrentControlSetEnumUSBSTOR) USBSTOR contains details on the vendor and brand of USB device connected, along with the serial number of the device that can be used to match the mounted drive letter, user, and the first and last connected times of the device.

The MountedDevices key (SYSTEMMountedDevices) Allows investigators to match the serial number to a given drive letter or volume that was mounted when the USB device was inserted. It’s possible that the investigator won’t be able to identify the drive letter if several USB devices have been added, since the mapped drive letter only shows the serial number for the most recently mounted device for each letter assigned.

The MountPoints2 key found in a user’s NTUSER.dat hive
(NTUSER.datSoftwareMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionExplorerMountPoints2) This information will reveal which user was logged in and active when the USB device was connected. MountPoints2 lists all of the device GUIDs that a particular user connected, so you might need to search through each NTUSER.dat hive on the system to identify which user connected a particular device.

The USB key in the SYSTEM hive (SYSTEMCurrentControlSetEnumUSB) This key provides investigators with vendor and product ID for a given device, but also provides the last time the USB device was connected to the system. Using the last write time for the key of the device serial number, investigators can identify the last time it was connected.

The setupapi log (ROOTWindowsinfsetupapi.dev.log for Windows Vista/7/8)(ROOTWindowssetupapi.log for Windows XP) Searching for the serial number in this file will provide investigators with information on when the device was first connected to the system in local time. Examiners must exercise caution, as unlike the other timestamps mentioned in this article which are stored in UTC, the setupapi.log stores its data in the system’s local time and must be converted to UTC to correctly match any timeline analysis being performed by the investigator.


LINK

I'm sorry, I find it incredulous to believe that any forensic analyst worth a damn would not be able to tell the difference between a USB file transfer and a network transfer. It is literally two separate mechanisms for transferring data. So, literally the only proof that this was a USB transfer and not a remote transfer of data is the word of one man. Also, I am unaware of any forensic indicator which records the speed of USB transfers.

So I am left with a couple of questions. Where and what kind of data is he referring to when he says the transfer rate was 49.1 MB/s. How did he confuse USB and Network traffic?



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Oh dear, I was already aware of the year round residency of beloved President Trump in the spooky attic of space between the ears of some, but it must be crowded since cranial space is at a premium with now Wikileaks also maintaining residency.

I don't recall any bad vibes about Wikileaks previous to the disclosures involving bad acts of our own helicopter government and much more finger pointing and faux cries of prosecute Assange after the release of a batch of emails involving famed, and fatally twice losing candidate Clinton.

Never mind the subjects in the emails, detailing how that perennially favored DNC candidate Clinton meddles in the DNC primary to destroy the viable candidacy of Senator Sanders. Not to mention that those emails being contained on a private server in violation of established laws. Must we also overlook that said material including classified material was being shared thru backups to a convicted sex offender not authorized to possess much less read said material.

Wikileaks, in previous disclosures provided the State Department advanced warning, in regards to the cable releases provided by the young soldier. Allowed them the opportunity of review in order to minimize damaging disclosures in regards to names of individuals who could have been endangered. Despite our government's assertions otherwise, no one individual was ever harmed due to that release, this from our own Justice Department even as other officials continued with the mandate that Wikileaks was responsible for individuals being killed.

Wikileaks acted just as every other responsible journalist organization that has printed classified material. Do you think that the New York Times would not have published those emails or cables if they had been the recipient of the material, despite the source ? I got news for you, that answer is unequivocally NO ! They may have being viewed and an admitted Clinton loyalists have slanted it away from being detrimental to her campaign but I would like to believe that they too, just as Wikileaks would have exercised the First Amendment Right which firmly establishes Freedom of the Press as well as Freedom of Speech.

I do hope that Mr Mueller attempts to prosecute Assange. It will be a disaster for him and his already shaky reputation, afterall, he did help imprison two innocent men for a murder that a mobster recieving protection from Muellers FBI, actually committed, he accused and attempted prosecution of another innocent man for an Anthrax case only to withdraw the charges to charge another individual with limited circumstantial evidence and no smoking gun per say, an individual who committed suicide before any truths revealed for yea or nay.

It will be fun to watch as News Organizations struggle with their continuation of the narrative they have been writing for the last 2 and a half years, or do they file Amicus Briefs with the courts on Assanges behalf. I think they will side, as quietly as they can with Assange and not support the government's infringement of Freedom of the Press nor Freedom of Speech. If Mueller actually charges Assange, it will be another in the many notches of failures on his belt. My guess is he will not charge Assange, or only do so with the belief that Assange will never appear just as he has in the past indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.

No fence leaning on this one, no matter if the published material damaged the only candidate one could support, no leaning if the published information appeared in any newspaper in the country or in just a file on Wikileaks page, one either supports the First Amendment or cast it aside due to partisanship, the right thing to do is support Assange and Wikileaks or prosecute every classified leak going back to the Pentagon Papers.

I fully expect to see full blown Trump Derangement Syndrome diagnosis to explode, right along with many heads when News Organizations from around the world offer support and defend Assange. Otherwise, we must burn the Constitution as it must no longer mean a thing, unless thru selective application and partisanship.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: BlackJackal

Wikileaks acted just as every other responsible journalist organization that has printed classified material.


Yep, allegedly coordinating releases of said classified information with the Russian government and the campaign of one Donald J Trump is exactly how every other journalist organization would have acted.

That is the allegation, if Mueller can prove that are you still going to be singing the same tune?

Also, Hillary is a #. The way that she rode roughshod over Bernie Sanders in the primary is despicable. I don't get why you people automatically assume that I am pro-Hillary just because I am against Trump breaking the damn law. I didn't vote for president in the 2016 election. I voted for other offices but I abstained from voting for president because I couldn't in good conscience give my vote to either one of them. They were both heavily flawed.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Actually, Binney has since walked all that back. The "analysis" was posted by the same British guy who was going by the name "Adam Carter" (as well as a number of other pseudonyms including that of a hacker who had been a friend of his and whom he was impersonating without the ex-friend's knowledge — to the degree that he'd actually set up webpages under the hijacked alias.)

I have debunked it a number of times in posts on ATS based strictly on the methodology employed before I was even aware of the sketchy backstory of the apparent author (actually, probably authors as it seems that the person who actually wrote it up was probably not behind the shell scripts, etc).

More about some of that here, including this bit from Binney:


On inspecting the full data analysis, Binney agreed: “It’s clear G2 is messing with the data. Everything G2 says is suspect and needs to be proven by other sources/means. I agree there is no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done.”

He added: “The merger of data from 5 July and 1 September ... makes all the G2 crap a fabrication ... we should only say what we can prove with evidence.”

[Updated 13 August:] Binney subsequently repeated and confirmed his views in an interview with the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee, a campaign vehicle for the controversial seven-time presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

Privately, Binney says his colleague Ray McGovern, who has also pushed the Forensicator theories, accepts that there is no evidence where the files were really copied. “Ray no longer argues that point – except to call it an ‘alleged location’,” said Binney. McGovern has refused to confirm this, or to answer questions about evidence for his claims.

Despite accepting that there was no evidence, Binney and McGovern have not retracted the claims in the 2017 VIPS report at the time of writing.

edit on 2018-11-30 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: DJMSN
Wiki Leaks has repeatedly denied that the treasure troves they released did not come from Russian sources. No investigation to my knowledge has yet to prove otherwise. It maybe the individual who did supply the information received it from Russian sources, but in very public statements it has been repeatedly denied.

It is at this junction of the investigation, that it is just as likely that a source inside the DNC or someone inside our government supplied the information to WikiLeaks. Since the investigation is really not much more than a fishing expedition, I doubt we will ever obtain clear and factual answers.

Nothing but speculation, much of it an attempt to cover over mistakes and criminal acts by other individuals who are apparently not subjects of the investigation, which appears by design. Non Disclosure Agreementd and blanket immunity deals are used to bury the whole manufactured truth.


Those WikiLeaks guys, known worldwide for their honesty and trustworthiness. We should definitely trust them when they deny getting their information from Russia.

Sorry, the Mueller investigation has already proven that Russia hacked the DNC and supplied that data to WikiLeaks. While the evidence to back it up is referred to in the indictment documents it is not currently available to the public. However, as with any indictment from the Mueller investigation, it must come from a grand jury. That grand jury would have been presented the evidence and made the decision whether or not to indict based on that evidence.

So just because we the public don't have the evidence the Mueller investigation does and a grand jury thought the evidence was compelling enough to sign an indictment.

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks


Yet I'm sure you cheered them on during the Bush years. Funny huh.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: TheOne7

Except the actual forensic data made available would necessitate a direct download and not remote access.


Except that's complete bull# that has been repeated ad nauseam by people who don't know any better. Not only was it a craptastic analysis on its face, making wholly unsupported conclusions, the source turned out to be sketchy af.


And the best that Crowdstrike and FireEye could come up with is a bunch of "possibly, appears, connects, indicates".

Phishing attacks are not a tactic unique to Russia.
Add to that the Gussifer 2.0 information is bunk. Is there proof that he worked for the Russian government? If not, then it just makes him a liar.

Next, Crowdstrike characterized the groups supposedly involved as top tier groups. But suddenly this one time they get sloppy and make amateurish mistakes like leaving Cyrillic identifiers, and "accidentally" forgetting to turn a VPN on?

What, was it training day at HQ?

Or is it more likely that a paid private group found an easy payday by claiming it was the Russians.

We'll never know because the DNC, the victim of a crime, paid a private company $$$ to handle this instead of the FBI.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Umm no Mueller has not proven the russians hacked the DNC server. Suspected and proven are two seperate things.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Apparently you are not against Hillary breaking the law. Nor do you seem to have issues with Mueller protecting people breaking the law. You keep asserting that the Russians are responsible for hacking the DNC but never provide any proof. In an earlier post you claim that Mueller knows and has already provided evidence to the Grand Jury who has issued indictments but the information is not public. Then how in heck DO YOU KNOW ? You don't, so stop stating something as fact when you have no clue.

If the President broke the law, then he should face justice as would anyone else not named Clinton would. Again, facts, we have no idea if Trump broke any laws, no idea if he coordinated with Wikileaks to release the files. I highly doubt that he picked up his personal bat phone and told Assange to do it on this day, I doubt he called Putin and said hey buddy, how about hacking some emails and give them to our buddy Julian.

Lots of assumptions taking place when in reality, nobody knows. We all want the had guys to be the Russians, heck they have been always in my lifetime. I really dont know what laws would be broken if Trump himself picked up the phone and called Assange who then told him, hey we got some emails and they will be coming out. Nothing in that scenario I can see would be illegal. Wikileaks did not hack anybody, one could make a case they are in fact a whistleblower organization.

Considering they have published embarrassing material on Russia and other countries kind of counters the argument that they are working with Russia. What is the difference between Comey leaking a confidential memo to the New York Times who then publishes it ? If Comey gave the memo to Wikileaks instead, would both of them be guilty of the crime ? Or does the law exclude the Times and Comey and only apply to Wikileaks ?

I find it much more distressing that a political opponent paid Christopher Steel, a former foreign spy to travel to Russia and pay former Russian spies to provide false information on a political candidate. That information was then used by other political opponents to get our FBI involved in investigation a campaign and members of that campaign. Our government then goes further, and enlist other foreign spy agencies like MI6, and the Australian Embassy staff to secretly record and attempt to entrap an individual. Out of both scenarios, which one provides examples of more wrongful and potentially criminal activity ? Mostly factual information in the second scenario, mostly rumors and innuendo in the first. Not hard for me but then I do not have Trump and Assange living rent free in my mind everyday



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join