White House: Ukraine aid held up in part over election probe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I don't disagree with you, mostly because Mr. Trump asked about "the Cloudstrike server" which doesn't seem to actually exist or have ever existed.

Of course it never existed... it is the DNC server (or one of them) that they examined - and made up a bunch of crap trying to pretend it was the bad/evil Russkies, like they did once before. Supposedly they still have it (or a copy). That is what Trump is talking about.

But apparently he was misinformed. I thought a Ukrainian business man owned Crowdstrike too, but apparently the guyy in question is Russian born, not Ukranian.

-shrug- oh well, nothing criminal about being misinformed about something.

That and the POTUS has extraordinary latitude when dealing with the leaders of other countries.

Yep.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I've seen no substantive evidence that Crowdstrike "made up a bunch of crap" about anything. The consensus from multiple sources and investigations confirmed Russian interference in our electoral process, so that's not really a question at this point.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

I've seen no substantive evidence that Crowdstrike "made up a bunch of crap" about anything.

It's out there, but you have to be willing to look.

You also have to be willing to at least consider that the CIA and other Intel agency heads would lie about something like this (is there really any doubt?)...

The consensus from multiple sources and investigations confirmed Russian interference in our electoral process, so that's not really a question at this point.

Yeah, not so much, they were all based on Crowdstrikes fake data...

a reply to: Gryphon66


They just don't get it. They want to keep drinking their stagnated kool-aid. No pep rally under God's green earth is going to save Trump. Oh it might make him feel better to see his base praising him, while he basks in his God complex. The house has to present a solid case to the senate. Impeachment by the house is coming. It's going to be recorded against him in the history books. And years from now, when people look back, it will be the Senate that will be judged on how they ACTED.

We all have a prayerful duty to get us out of this mess. He's so irrational it scares me.

originally posted by: Myrtales Instinct
a reply to: Gryphon66


They just don't get it.

They just don't care.

It's a critical distinction that sometimes saves time and energy.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Thanks. From your source:

On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report. The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS

A claim was made in a separate report regarding Russian hacks on the Ukraine that a certain number of artillery was lost.

That claim was later adjusted BY CROWDSTRIKE.

Nothing was changed regarding the assertion that Russian forces attacked both the Ukraine and the US via hacking.


Also from your source .. .

In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact.

This update does not in any way impact the core premise of the report that the FANCY BEAR threat actor implanted malware into a D-30 targeting application developed by a Ukrainian military officer," Dmitrova wrote

Also from your source ....

Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.

Your source does nothing to substantiate your claim that the Crowdstrike report regarding the DNC server was "a load of crap."

But you know that don't you?

As far as the CIA lying, sure, that's the business they're in. As far as the rest of the IC, sure, but not this uniformly and openly. Do you have any reason aside from your support for Trump that you believe the IC lied?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

I've seen no substantive evidence that Crowdstrike "made up a bunch of crap" about anything. The consensus from multiple sources and investigations confirmed Russian interference in our electoral process, so that's not really a question at this point.

Nope.

That, just like the Hunter Biden thing have not been thoroughly investigated.

Muellers investigation is what I assume you are referring too with the "Russia clearly interfered with our election" comment is coming from.

Both have been clearly politically biased and if you still buy into it I feel very sorry for you.

Russia didnt do anything of any importance.

Nancy yelling at Trump a few days ago saying " this all leads back to Putin" during the Syria meltdown is insane.

But it's the only thing you guys got.....


Lolz🤪

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your source does nothing to substantiate your claim that the Crowdstrike report regarding the DNC server was "a load of crap."

But you know that don't you?

No, actually, but in my haste I did provide the wrong link (to the earlier report they had to walk back, thereby providing evidence they cannot be trusted)...

Also, the Russian-born guy who owns Crowdstrike - vehemently anti-Russian (one more motive)...

Try this one...

a reply to: Myrtales Instinct

When I joined ATS I believed that intereaction here was valuable because of the genuine research and data that so many posters here had that was unavailable through more conventional means. That's less true these days.

I'm not surprised that people support Mr. Trump. I'm saddened that some Trump supporters are so willing to deny reality.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your source does nothing to substantiate your claim that the Crowdstrike report regarding the DNC server was "a load of crap."

But you know that don't you?

No, actually, but in my haste I did provide the wrong link (to the earlier report they had to walk back, thereby providing evidence they cannot be trusted)...

Also, the Russian-born guy who owns Crowdstrike - vehemently anti-Russian (one more motive)...

Try this one...

Your previous source stated clearly that Crowdstrike amended their report when they became aware of change in material facts on the data involved. Rather than "proving they can't be trusted" what that shows is that they are honest and willing to correct mistakes.

Your article at the Nation is interesting. However, from the leading Editorial note:

That is why The Nation published Patrick Lawrence’s article “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.” The article largely reported on a recently published memo prepared by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which argued, based on their own investigation, that the theft of the DNC e-mails was not a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia.

and further ...

As editor of The Nation, my purpose in publishing Patrick Lawrence’s article was to make more widely known the VIPS critique of the January ICA assertions, the questions VIPS raised, and their counter-thesis that the disseminated DNC e-mails resulted from a leak, not a hack. Those questions remain vital. Subsequently, Nation editors themselves raised questions about the editorial process that preceded the publication of the article. The article was indeed fact-checked to ensure that Patrick Lawrence, a regular Nation contributor, accurately reported the VIPS analysis and conclusions, which he did. As part of the editing process, however, we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties. And given the technical complexity of the material, we would have benefited from bringing on an independent expert to conduct a rigorous review of the VIPS technical claims.

Emphasis mine. Further ...

We have also learned since publication, from longtime VIPS member Thomas Drake, that there is a dispute among VIPS members themselves about the July 24 memo. This is not the first time a VIPS report has been internally disputed, but it is the first time one has been released over the substantive objections of several VIPS members.

Your source doesn't seem to think it's a reliable source ....

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Thanks for sharing your opinions with me. Based on the facts of which I am aware, what you're saying is incorrect.

Hunter Biden was "thoroughly investigated" by the Ukranians regarding his affiliation with Burisma.

The Mueller Report substantiated what the American Intelligence Community had previously stated, and is in it's own right, a very thorough investigation. Further, the Mueller Report has not been discredited by any rational means.

Trump supporters and Republicans don't like it, but that's not a rational problem.

I'm not sure who you're referring to with "you guys" but it seems you're locked into an "Us/Them" mode which I find ridiculous. I'll be glad to address facts that you bring up, but honestly, I have no further comments on your opinions on the matter.

Best,

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person pays for services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.

FEC, "Types of Contributions"

A President executing his constiutional powers as leader of the Executiuve Branch is not campaigning. Asking the Ukraine to aid in investigations of corruption in DC (as part of a DoJ investigation) can not be seen as a campaign activity. If you assume that then every single person in office who is an opponent of the President would find themselves immune from investigation, with DoJ hamstrung to the point they could ask no one for any support or testimony - which makes zero sense.

Immunity from the Executive branch carrying out their purpose of enforcing US laws is not something that exists or should exist.

I mean how far do you want to go with that? Would the House Democrats therefore be receiving campaign contributions every time they had a person testify in their impeachment enquiry?

a reply to: UKTruth

I could easily argue that Trump has never STOPPED campaigning, and that he held Trump 2020 rallies both before and after the matter of the telephone call.

You know as well as I do that there's zero actual evidence that either Biden participated in "corruption" regarding Ukraine.

I concur that the President's diplomatic and executive authority overshadows the text of the telephone call HOWEVER, if it is found that the White House covered the matter up, that's a differently coloured horse, now isn't it?

Show that one of the Democrats in the race has contacted the President (or similar level) of another country and asked for dirt on Trump in exchange for their vote ... and you'll have something.

Compare it to what the Clinton Campaign did with the Steele Dossier and you'll have a small bit of something (although, none of the principals invovled in that were actual government officials) but not much.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I could easily argue that Trump has never STOPPED campaigning, and that he held Trump 2020 rallies both before and after the matter of the telephone call.

You know as well as I do that there's zero actual evidence that either Biden participated in "corruption" regarding Ukraine.

I concur that the President's diplomatic and executive authority overshadows the text of the telephone call HOWEVER, if it is found that the White House covered the matter up, that's a differently coloured horse, now isn't it?

Show that one of the Democrats in the race has contacted the President (or similar level) of another country and asked for dirt on Trump in exchange for their vote ... and you'll have something.

Compare it to what the Clinton Campaign did with the Steele Dossier and you'll have a small bit of something (although, none of the principals invovled in that were actual government officials) but not much.

My point to you was limited to the classification of campaign contributions being not relevant because it can easily be shown that the President was doing his constitutionally mandated job, not campaigning. Again, if you use the perception of campaigning it's easy to say that all politicians are always campaigning every time they make a public appearance.

The level of the person providing evidence should not enter into the debate as to whether it was a campaign contribution or not - and they do not in the FEC rules (other than foreign contributions)

By the way, I am glad to see you back on these boards. I hardly agree with anything you say, but you provide thoughtful debating points.

a reply to: UKTruth

Thanks for the ... Welcome ... LOL.

Yes the level of the person doesn't matter in the FEC rules.

I'm going to have to give the Steele matter some more thought and research ... It actually does seem to make the same transgression.

Hmmm ... Thought provoking.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your source does nothing to substantiate your claim that the Crowdstrike report regarding the DNC server was "a load of crap."

But you know that don't you?

No, actually, but in my haste I did provide the wrong link (to the earlier report they had to walk back, thereby providing evidence they cannot be trusted)...

Also, the Russian-born guy who owns Crowdstrike - vehemently anti-Russian (one more motive)...

Try this one...

THAT is one hell of a qualifier "The Nation" had to include before that article.
It might not be a full retraction, but it definitely says that most of what is in the Article should not be taken seriously.

a reply to: Extorris

The amazing thing is that all of that would have to be read through before one got to article ... and it was STILL held up as fact.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The Office of President of the United States Has Every RIGHT and POWER to talk to Foreign Leaders about ANY MATTER he Wishes and PRIVATELY if Need Be . The Fact that His Conversations are Recorded by U.S. Intelligence Agencies With or Without his Knowledge should be Considered a CRIME .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: RadioRobert

The Office of President of the United States Has Every RIGHT and POWER to talk to Foreign Leaders about ANY MATTER he Wishes and PRIVATELY if Need Be . The Fact that His Conversations are Recorded by U.S. Intelligence Agencies With or Without his Knowledge should be Considered a CRIME .

So Trump is above the Law?

Okie dokie.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: RadioRobert

The Office of President of the United States Has Every RIGHT and POWER to talk to Foreign Leaders about ANY MATTER he Wishes and PRIVATELY if Need Be . The Fact that His Conversations are Recorded by U.S. Intelligence Agencies With or Without his Knowledge should be Considered a CRIME .

So Trump is above the Law?

Okie dokie.

Really Man ? Can you even READ ? Go Check the Legal Powers of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government , then get back to me .............