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.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie.
Another lie... Never happened and not only that but there were no e mails that even sounded remotely like this happened.
I think most folks never read a single e mail.. they just went by what they heard or read others say about them.
So depending on your source those e mails said different things.
but none showed that they colluded with Hillary to steal the nomination from Bernie.
Bernie never had it. He was just too stubborn to lay down.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: shooterbrody
Brought to you by the same fine folks whom loved, trusted and raved about "Hottie Avennati"
originally posted by: Sillyolme
"The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie."
Another lie....
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie.
Another lie... Never happened and not only that but there were no e mails that even sounded remotely like this happened.
I think most folks never read a single e mail.. they just went by what they heard or read others say about them.
So depending on your source those e mails said different things.
but none showed that they colluded with Hillary to steal the nomination from Bernie.
Bernie never had it. He was just too stubborn to lay down.
Hahahaha
You people will still not even admit stealing the nom from bernie!
D E L U S I O N A L
Why anyone would ever give credence to you people I will never know.
Nothing but liars.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
I already did, and you just ignore anything that doesn't fit your 'orange man bad' syndrome....
But just for giggles, I'll repeat them and here, and how about this, this, this, and last, try this.
You could say that... or you could say they are full of crap, and make crap up, then back-pedal if/when they get caught.
Sorry, I guess the pressure is getting to you, now you're just throwing crap against a wall to see if anything sticks.
Nothing to quote/link, because nothing substantial has happened yet. Patience, grasshopper.
The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie. If I had been a Democrat and/or a Bernie supporter, I'd have been livid.
Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have discredited both the DNC and Hillary?
Which could have been from a hack, or from data stolen by an insider who had access.
You could say that, sure.
Or, you could say that data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
Occams Razor and all.
Rotflmao! That is like saying "Trump would have been guilty of murder, except that he didn't murder anyone.'
Ummm. No. Two completely different scenarios. Hillary's crimes were actually extremely serious violations of the espionage Act.
The DNC situation was just extremely embarrassing for the DNC.
"Mueller himself said there was nothing inaccurate in Barrs letter."
It omitted specific important information.
What specific information was omitted. Be specific, and use your own words, not a link to the words of some MSM hack opining about it.
Mueller's report is over 400 detailed pages. Barr's summary was 4 pages. There was stuff left out.
Mueller's March 27 letter to Barr, paragraph 3
It did not accurately summarize the conclusions, which was misleading.
There were only two conclusions.
No collusion.
Nolle prosequi on obstruction, thereby punting that decision to his boss, the AG, aka William Barr.
Still waiting on someone to provide a simple statement of fact as to what Barr said that was misleading. Seeing as Mueller himself said Barrs letter was accurate, I wont hold my breath.
Van Hollen: "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?"
Barr: "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."
So, now all you have to do is provide a link to a quote where Mueller says he does or does not support Barrs conclusion about obstruction.
Tick-tock.
originally posted by: chr0naut
You cannot effectively trace the IP of someone who comes in via an anonymizing VPN network.
However, when the DNC's network syslogs showed an IP that was not over an anonymized VPN connection, and coincident with the hacked files being 'touched' (a mistake where the hackers got lazy), the IP address range could be traced back to the city in Russia from which the hack originated. None of your reports bother to mention this fact because it immediately demolishes their suppositions.
"Sorry, I guess the pressure is getting to you, now you're just throwing crap against a wall to see if anything sticks."
But you are the one suggesting that, somehow, Trump relates to this thread.
The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie. If I had been a Democrat and/or a Bernie supporter, I'd have been livid."
They colluded, did they?
I thought it was all out in the open.
The party chose Hillary rather that the better candidate. Sucks for them because I'm pretty sure Trump would not be President if they had fielded better candidates.
How did that insider do so from a Russian IP address?
If you ignore theactualfake evidence, it could have beenTrumpSeth Rich.
"What specific information was omitted. Be specific, and use your own words, not a link to the words of some MSM hack opining about it."
Mueller's report is over 400 detailed pages. Barr's summary was 4 pages. There was stuff left out.
" "It did not accurately summarize the conclusions, which was misleading." "
"There were only two conclusions.
No collusion.
Nolle prosequi on obstruction, thereby punting that decision to his boss, the AG, aka William Barr."
Barr's March 24 letter to Congress does not include the words 'collusion', 'collude'
or 'prosequi'
So, clearly Barr lied & Mueller isn't a media show.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
You cannot effectively trace the IP of someone who comes in via an anonymizing VPN network.
You can if you have the logs from said anonymizing VPN provider. Most of these providers are honeypots run by certain 3 letter agencies.
However, when the DNC's network syslogs showed an IP that was not over an anonymized VPN connection, and coincident with the hacked files being 'touched' (a mistake where the hackers got lazy), the IP address range could be traced back to the city in Russia from which the hack originated. None of your reports bother to mention this fact because it immediately demolishes their suppositions.
Because this 'evidence' is easily faked, either by Crowdstrike (the only ones with access to the actual server), or one the 3 letter agencies they were working with (CIA? NSA?).
"Sorry, I guess the pressure is getting to you, now you're just throwing crap against a wall to see if anything sticks."
But you are the one suggesting that, somehow, Trump relates to this thread.
No, I'm not and never did, and that was precisely my point.
The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie. If I had been a Democrat and/or a Bernie supporter, I'd have been livid."
They colluded, did they?
Yep.
I thought it was all out in the open.
It wasn't - until the leaked DNC emails showed up, exposing the ugly truth to the world.
The party chose Hillary rather that the better candidate. Sucks for them because I'm pretty sure Trump would not be President if they had fielded better candidates.
It is actually possible that Bernie could have won...
Whats the old saying? 'God works in mysterious ways'...
How did that insider do so from a Russian IP address?
They didn't. The Russian IP 'evidence' was easily faked, put there to support the illusion.
If you ignore theactualfake evidence, it could have beenTrumpSeth Rich.
Fixed that for ya...
"What specific information was omitted. Be specific, and use your own words, not a link to the words of some MSM hack opining about it."
Mueller's report is over 400 detailed pages. Barr's summary was 4 pages. There was stuff left out.
So... freakin ... what???
As been said far too many times to count - Barrs letter was simply a statement of the Conclusions, not a summary of the report. If all you have is a complaint that a 4 page 'statement of conclusions' of a 400 page detailed report 'left stuff out', then you're beyond help.
Even a very detailed summary of the report - say, 100 pages - would still, by necessity, 'leave stuff out'.
The question is... what was left out that you believe resulted in his letter being 'misleading' in any way.
" "It did not accurately summarize the conclusions, which was misleading." "
"There were only two conclusions.
No collusion.
Nolle prosequi on obstruction, thereby punting that decision to his boss, the AG, aka William Barr."
Barr's March 24 letter to Congress does not include the words 'collusion', 'collude'
Yes, isn't that interesting - seeing as the entire bogus pretext for the appointment of a SC was to investigate Trump/Russian collusion.
or 'prosequi'
So ... freakin ... what???
I was using a legal term to describe the fact that Mueller failed in his duty to reach a conclusion on obstruction.
Reading comprehension problems, much?
So, clearly Barr lied & Mueller isn't a media show.
Eh? Barr lied about what? He didn't know if Mueller agreed with his conclusions about obstruction. Show me where Barr was made aware of Muellers opinion on his conclusions regarding obstruction, then lied about it.
Seriously... why on earth do you think a seasoned lawyer like Barr would lie about something so inconsequential?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl
He keeps saying Barr lied even after being presented with evidence he did not. He does not care.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Even the congressional dems have dropped the barr lied talking point.
You being upside down haven't figured that out yet.
No worries.
Declass coming soon and an end to all the bs.
The bad orange man won.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Because the President fires people who he doesn't like
and then he instigates an ongoing public smer campaign to try ad justify his actions. The result of this is that for anyone in he targets, their future life and work is ruined.
Jim Mathis, Nikki Hayley, James Comey, Sally Yates, Michael Flynn, Preet Bhara, Walter Shaub, Michael Dubke, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, Michael Short, Anthony Scaramucci, Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, Tom Price, Omarosa Manigault, Andrew McCabe, Rob Porter, David Sorenson, Hope Hicks, Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, David Shulkin, to name a few.
And I know, he's "draining the swamp", yet many are people he appointed and therefore weren't deeps state, anyway.
Have you read in history of the purges that happen with every despot? Every one.
The fact that you think this is about Trump speaks volumes
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
The fact that you think this is about Trump speaks volumes
mkay
the bad orange man won
you may return to you hobbit hole now, perhaps jackson has some other purpose for that place
oh wait you left there right?
just in time for the recent trump like election as well?
The Australian federal election has delivered a shocking result, with the right-wing Liberal-National government expected to return to power for a third term despite polls and odds having strongly favored the opposition Labor Party.
Labor leader Bill Shorten conceded, telling supporters, “I know that you’re all hurting, and I am too,” after what has been described by the ABC as a “horror night” for Labor.
The Labor Party was widely favored to win this election — so much so that popular gambling website Sportsbet opted to pay out to Labor-backers two days early, to the tune of $1.3 million
by likening it to the American situation, which it plainly is not.
Firstly, I moved to New Zealand decades ago.