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 Asks for Evidence Russians Hacked DNC Server

page: 10
43
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Oh I agree 100%, just trying to be objective about the whole thing. If she had won, none of this would have seen the light of day.




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

My apologies, sorry I was wrong. Please show me where the FBI was given direct access. I will wait.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

So CrowdStrike had all 140 servers on one image bwaaaaaaaaa😆

And Comey was 100% impartial and not even one ittsy bit in cover-up mode during the entire Clinton and DNC scandals 😆



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually what we say is that some members of FBI hijacked the FBI and were helping the Democrats. This is yet more evidence of it. The entire FBI is not bad, only the people who were leading it. The information the grunts collected seemed fine, it proved crimes Hillary committed. It also proved Trump did not collude.

The problem is what the people at the top did with that information.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

blah blah blah

Like I said....

Helping the dems.... going after trump...

same thing all day every day



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Sorry you misrepresented what is being said and you can't back up your posts. Like where you need to back up the DNC gave direct access to the FBI, back it up.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Some people (actually many) getting the 💥soon to be public IG Report💥 JITTERS.

Barr has it already and it's getting published soon.

The bananaMSMmob is doing their best to prep for the swarm 🍌🤣🍌

💨🐀



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh so they destroyed possible evidence under the cover of getting ready for the election.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sillyolme

Sorry you misrepresented what is being said and you can't back up your posts. Like where you need to back up the DNC gave direct access to the FBI, back it up.


The facts aren't on their side on this. The only way they can argue with you is to make # up.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some people (actually many) getting the 💥soon to be public IG Report💥 JITTERS.

Barr has it already and it's getting published soon.

The bananaMSMmob is doing their best to prep for the swarm 🍌🤣🍌

💨🐀


I wouldn't get your hopes up.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: xuenchen

Why was it "not possible" for the FBI to actually have the DNC Server and Hard Drive in its possession to prove an International Event of the scope of Russia directly spying on a Presidential Campaign?

Wouldn't that be something you'd want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Between that, and the immunity deals they were handing out like condoms at Spring Break, I knew the whole thing smelled to high heaven.


This works because of a thing called magnetic hysteresis which means that magnetic domains spread out over time through the media and that greater energy is required to erase the data than it took to originally write it.

My IT career goes back 40 years and in the early days, I worked in the operating system group on mainframes. We did a lot of low level things ignoring any formats, etc. But, I did not know about "magnetic hysteresis". If I didn't know you (as far as you can know someone on ATS), I'd call BS. Interesting indeed.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

That information does not come from the servers, it comes from the released files. Please keep up. So back to the original question, who other than CS did the DNC give direct access to the DNC servers to?


The servers were moved to CrowdStrike's premises for deeper 'offline' forensic analysis.

The actual move was under guard by the FBI due to the potential national security compromise posed.


There shouldn't be any national security information on the DNC servers. The DNC (and the RNC) are separate and independent entities from actual Democrat and Republican lawmakers and administration officials, who do have access to sensitive information. The party committees aren't supposed to have access to anything like that. The only thing that was in the DNC emails was politically sensitive and embarrassing information to the DNC. The FBI couldn't give two #s about the info contained in the emails, which would be the only reason to have the servers themselves protected or "under guard." All they would potentially care about was the efforts by a foreign government to gain access to the servers in order to meddle in the election, and if that's really what happened, the FBI should've been the ones doing the forensic analysis. The entire episode was, at best, irresponsible on the part of the DNC. They knew they had lousy security, they were warned, they took no action, they got compromised, whether by an outside hack or an insider, and then the way they handled it afterwards was amateur as #.


Even Hillary seemed to have no idea that she shouldn't have been carrying on communications like she did when she was in the State Department.


You don't actually believe this do you? First Lady for 8 years, senator on the Senate Armed Services committee with top secret clearance for 6 years, and then Secretary of State, had no idea how to handle classified information?


When I met her she appeared to be a tired and slightly confused old woman. I wouldn't put it past either of them if they were having with geriatric issues.

Covfefe. Oranges. "Bigly" instead of big league. "Midtowm" elections. "Midturn" elections. The town of "pleasure" (not Paradise) in California. Calling the CEO of Apple "Tim Apple". “My father is German. Right? Was German. And born in a very wonderful place in Germany” (his father was born in the Bronx). The prime minister of Israel "Betanyahu". Anonymous becomes “enenamas” or "anenomynous". Renovation becomes “renoversh”. Missiles become "mishiz" Space capsule becomes “capsicle” and Christmas becomes “Chrissus.”

Remarks by President Trump at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference


edit on 19/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I wouldn't put it past either of them if they were having issues with geriatric issues.


So hypothetically, you have issues with Trump's potential access to classified data but not with Hilary's actual access to that same data? How about Hilary not "intending" to compromise classified info versus Trump's not intending to obstruct justice? If it's all relative, where do you draw the line?



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: xuenchen

Why was it "not possible" for the FBI to actually have the DNC Server and Hard Drive in its possession to prove an International Event of the scope of Russia directly spying on a Presidential Campaign?

Wouldn't that be something you'd want to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Between that, and the immunity deals they were handing out like condoms at Spring Break, I knew the whole thing smelled to high heaven.


This works because of a thing called magnetic hysteresis which means that magnetic domains spread out over time through the media and that greater energy is required to erase the data than it took to originally write it.

My IT career goes back 40 years and in the early days, I worked in the operating system group on mainframes. We did a lot of low level things ignoring any formats, etc. But, I did not know about "magnetic hysteresis". If I didn't know you (as far as you can know someone on ATS), I'd call BS. Interesting indeed.


Well you'd know that back then the low level format was what was called MFM (Modified Frequency Modification) which reduced the number of required flux reversals per clock cycle and therefore granted higher data density.

These days, they use Run Length Limited (RLL) encoding instead, on magnetic media (although MFM was actually a type of RLL).

Years and years ago, I had access to some "proprietary" Western Digital internal technical papers due to an intermittent failure of an Amstrad designed (actually, I suspect Roland Perry was the designer, he was the master of PLC's which were all over it) MFM high transfer rate HDD controller.

This was in the DOS days, probably about the time of Windows 1.x and GEM, so you can see how ancient I am.




posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420

originally posted by: chr0naut
I wouldn't put it past either of them if they were having issues with geriatric issues.


So hypothetically, you have issues with Trump's potential access to classified data but not with Hilary's actual access to that same data? How about Hilary not "intending" to compromise classified info versus Trump's not intending to obstruct justice? If it's all relative, where do you draw the line?


The difference there is it's actually believable with Trump. After all, they've spent several years now trying to convince us that he's such a dotart and out of his league, has no idea what he's doing, doesn't fit in the office, etc. No rational person would think Clinton doesn't know how to handle classified material. The idea that she didn't "intend" to mishandle classified info with her email system is asinine.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: tanstaafl
"while I think stone is a slimy individual who probably deserves jail time."

bolded the important word for you to assist with your reading comprehension issues.

So you think trying to justify libelous remarks with 'probably' lets you off the hook?



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
Asked? Yes.
Answered? No.

Yes... you just don't like the answer, so you continue engaging in delusions just so you don't have to admit you are and have been delusional for years.


Someone is fantasizing about being a lawyer.

Not at all, just been studying it for years.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
It wasn't up to Crowd Strike to grant or deny access. It was not their property.

Are yous sure? Maybe Clinton was renting the server from them.

Either way, either Clinton, or Crowdstrike, denied access to it.

Although it looks now like the FBI never officially asked for access to it - one of many egregious violations of the investigative process with regard to HRC.







 
43
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join