|
On February 06 2019 02:20 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not overlooking anyone's personal use of emails. But to my knowledge, no one did what Hillary did. Nor was anyone else's email compromised to the degree that Hillary's was. Now, if you want to take the position that Hillary's use of personal email was investigated, I think that's fair. There was quite a bit of investigation into it. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it was all swept under the rug by DOJ rather than prosecuted as it should have been. Again, Comey outlined in explicit detail how she violated the law even though he purposefully tweaked some of the language that he used to justify not referring her for prosecution. As an IT security specialist, and ex-custodian of government cryptos, I have issue with the assumption that Hillary's emails were compromised. First, IT security : her server was not hacked to the extent of the available knowledge and expertise conducted... So no, her email server, while underprotected (since it was accessible via RDP hence somewhat vulnerable), has not been compromised until proven otherwise. Then a fucking idiot (sorry, no other words) deleted emails after their retention was ordered, as we was supposed to have done the deletion prior to the request but failed to do so. Second, classified data assets compromission is by definition when classified information is out in the open (lost, opened in an unsecured area where unauthorized eyes can land on them, other reasons) and has been potentially disseminated. While there was definitely a breach of the rules in dealing with classified information, it was not determined that she had lost classified data due to that. (If you compare to the guy that took pictures of classified areas of a submarine, and SENT THEM to someone else, that shouldn't have had access to those. That guy, whom Trump often referred to, has been convicted due to that dissemination of information). She did lie about the fact that it contained no classified information, and probably should have been charged with that, at least. Though it seems the messages in question were not really properly marked, and from experience, politicians, though they should, are usually not proficient enough in classifications. HRC was not a newbie, she should know, but it's pretty hard to prove the intent to lie/deceive. Again, you are supposedly a lawyer, but often use very specific words in the wrong way. Please be careful.
I'm not assuming anything. Members of the house intel committee have repeatedly stated that her email was compromised by multiple foreign agencies. Hell, Louis Gohmert said that the Chinese were reading her email in real time.
EDIT: For example....
The Clinton Server Anomalies
At two points during Priestap’s testimony, the possibility of access by a foreign adversary to Clinton’s server was discussed. This issue was first broached during testimony by Horowitz and was again explored during Strzok’s public testimony under questioning from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
“The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an ‘anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,’” Gohmert said.
“It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added.
The Clinton email server investigation originated from an assessment contained within a June 29, 2015, memo from the inspectors general of the Intelligence Community and the State Department, which detailed the existence of “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”
On July 6, 2015, the IGs for the Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, pursuant to the Intelligence Authorization Act. The FBI then formally opened an investigation on July 10, 2015.
In either late 2015 or early 2016, the IC inspector general, Chuck McCullough, sent Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan to meet with the FBI in order to detail the anomaly that had been uncovered. That meeting was attended by four individuals, including Strzok, then-Executive Assistant Director John Giacalone, and then-Section Chief Dean Chappell. The identity of the fourth individual remains unknown, though Moffa, who also met with the IG at various times, is a possible candidate. Charles Kable, who also met with the ICIG at several points, is another possible candidate.
Priestap testified that he had not been briefed on the Clinton server anomaly by Strzok, noting “this would have been a big deal.”
“I am not aware of any evidence that demonstrated that. I’m also not aware of any evidence that my team or anybody reporting to me on this had advised me that there were anomalies that couldn’t be accounted for. I don’t recall that,” he said.
Priestap’s admission that this was all new information to him, prompted an observation from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) that Strzok appeared to be exercising significant investigative control:
Mr. Meadows: “It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?”
Mr. Priestap: “Peter and Jon, yeah.”
As Meadows noted during testimony, this matter still had to be officially “closed out” by the FBI before the official closing of the Clinton investigation. Strzok personally called the IC inspector general within minutes of Comey’s July 5, 2016, press conference on the Clinton investigation, telling him that the FBI would be sending a “referral to close it out.”
Meadows seemed genuinely surprised that Strzok had apparently kept this information successfully hidden from Priestap, noting, “I’m a Member from North Carolina, and you’re saying that I have better intel than you do?”
Source.
|
This seems fine. Our national security is in the hands of Donald trump's gut instincts. One can see why Bolton tried to walk it back.
|
On February 06 2019 02:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 02:20 Nouar wrote:On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not overlooking anyone's personal use of emails. But to my knowledge, no one did what Hillary did. Nor was anyone else's email compromised to the degree that Hillary's was. Now, if you want to take the position that Hillary's use of personal email was investigated, I think that's fair. There was quite a bit of investigation into it. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it was all swept under the rug by DOJ rather than prosecuted as it should have been. Again, Comey outlined in explicit detail how she violated the law even though he purposefully tweaked some of the language that he used to justify not referring her for prosecution. As an IT security specialist, and ex-custodian of government cryptos, I have issue with the assumption that Hillary's emails were compromised. First, IT security : her server was not hacked to the extent of the available knowledge and expertise conducted... So no, her email server, while underprotected (since it was accessible via RDP hence somewhat vulnerable), has not been compromised until proven otherwise. Then a fucking idiot (sorry, no other words) deleted emails after their retention was ordered, as we was supposed to have done the deletion prior to the request but failed to do so. Second, classified data assets compromission is by definition when classified information is out in the open (lost, opened in an unsecured area where unauthorized eyes can land on them, other reasons) and has been potentially disseminated. While there was definitely a breach of the rules in dealing with classified information, it was not determined that she had lost classified data due to that. (If you compare to the guy that took pictures of classified areas of a submarine, and SENT THEM to someone else, that shouldn't have had access to those. That guy, whom Trump often referred to, has been convicted due to that dissemination of information). She did lie about the fact that it contained no classified information, and probably should have been charged with that, at least. Though it seems the messages in question were not really properly marked, and from experience, politicians, though they should, are usually not proficient enough in classifications. HRC was not a newbie, she should know, but it's pretty hard to prove the intent to lie/deceive. Again, you are supposedly a lawyer, but often use very specific words in the wrong way. Please be careful. I'm not assuming anything. Members of the house intel committee have repeatedly stated that her email was compromised by multiple foreign agencies. Hell, Louis Gohmert said that the Chinese were reading her email in real time. EDIT: For example.... Show nested quote +The Clinton Server Anomalies
At two points during Priestap’s testimony, the possibility of access by a foreign adversary to Clinton’s server was discussed. This issue was first broached during testimony by Horowitz and was again explored during Strzok’s public testimony under questioning from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
“The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an ‘anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,’” Gohmert said.
“It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added.
The Clinton email server investigation originated from an assessment contained within a June 29, 2015, memo from the inspectors general of the Intelligence Community and the State Department, which detailed the existence of “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”
On July 6, 2015, the IGs for the Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, pursuant to the Intelligence Authorization Act. The FBI then formally opened an investigation on July 10, 2015.
In either late 2015 or early 2016, the IC inspector general, Chuck McCullough, sent Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan to meet with the FBI in order to detail the anomaly that had been uncovered. That meeting was attended by four individuals, including Strzok, then-Executive Assistant Director John Giacalone, and then-Section Chief Dean Chappell. The identity of the fourth individual remains unknown, though Moffa, who also met with the IG at various times, is a possible candidate. Charles Kable, who also met with the ICIG at several points, is another possible candidate.
Priestap testified that he had not been briefed on the Clinton server anomaly by Strzok, noting “this would have been a big deal.”
“I am not aware of any evidence that demonstrated that. I’m also not aware of any evidence that my team or anybody reporting to me on this had advised me that there were anomalies that couldn’t be accounted for. I don’t recall that,” he said.
Priestap’s admission that this was all new information to him, prompted an observation from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) that Strzok appeared to be exercising significant investigative control:
Mr. Meadows: “It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?”
Mr. Priestap: “Peter and Jon, yeah.”
As Meadows noted during testimony, this matter still had to be officially “closed out” by the FBI before the official closing of the Clinton investigation. Strzok personally called the IC inspector general within minutes of Comey’s July 5, 2016, press conference on the Clinton investigation, telling him that the FBI would be sending a “referral to close it out.”
Meadows seemed genuinely surprised that Strzok had apparently kept this information successfully hidden from Priestap, noting, “I’m a Member from North Carolina, and you’re saying that I have better intel than you do?” Source.
I'm trying to dig a little to see what I can find on these alleged metadata anomalies. If this is true, then all the investigation team should be prosecuted, but I doubt they would take so many risks, it sounds really crazy. So I'm trying to see what I can find (technical details, but I doubt I'll find them).
The part about Louis Gohmert, either you try to be fair and also trust what the dems have to say about Trump's team lying to congress, either you don't care and trust only republicans, not dems. If what he said was true and Strzok lied, then why haven't the House and DOJ pushed for prosecution for lying to Congress ? (both controlled by Reps at the time...)
I'll come back after getting more details.
|
On February 06 2019 03:01 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2019 02:20 Nouar wrote:On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not overlooking anyone's personal use of emails. But to my knowledge, no one did what Hillary did. Nor was anyone else's email compromised to the degree that Hillary's was. Now, if you want to take the position that Hillary's use of personal email was investigated, I think that's fair. There was quite a bit of investigation into it. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it was all swept under the rug by DOJ rather than prosecuted as it should have been. Again, Comey outlined in explicit detail how she violated the law even though he purposefully tweaked some of the language that he used to justify not referring her for prosecution. As an IT security specialist, and ex-custodian of government cryptos, I have issue with the assumption that Hillary's emails were compromised. First, IT security : her server was not hacked to the extent of the available knowledge and expertise conducted... So no, her email server, while underprotected (since it was accessible via RDP hence somewhat vulnerable), has not been compromised until proven otherwise. Then a fucking idiot (sorry, no other words) deleted emails after their retention was ordered, as we was supposed to have done the deletion prior to the request but failed to do so. Second, classified data assets compromission is by definition when classified information is out in the open (lost, opened in an unsecured area where unauthorized eyes can land on them, other reasons) and has been potentially disseminated. While there was definitely a breach of the rules in dealing with classified information, it was not determined that she had lost classified data due to that. (If you compare to the guy that took pictures of classified areas of a submarine, and SENT THEM to someone else, that shouldn't have had access to those. That guy, whom Trump often referred to, has been convicted due to that dissemination of information). She did lie about the fact that it contained no classified information, and probably should have been charged with that, at least. Though it seems the messages in question were not really properly marked, and from experience, politicians, though they should, are usually not proficient enough in classifications. HRC was not a newbie, she should know, but it's pretty hard to prove the intent to lie/deceive. Again, you are supposedly a lawyer, but often use very specific words in the wrong way. Please be careful. I'm not assuming anything. Members of the house intel committee have repeatedly stated that her email was compromised by multiple foreign agencies. Hell, Louis Gohmert said that the Chinese were reading her email in real time. EDIT: For example.... The Clinton Server Anomalies
At two points during Priestap’s testimony, the possibility of access by a foreign adversary to Clinton’s server was discussed. This issue was first broached during testimony by Horowitz and was again explored during Strzok’s public testimony under questioning from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
“The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an ‘anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,’” Gohmert said.
“It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added.
The Clinton email server investigation originated from an assessment contained within a June 29, 2015, memo from the inspectors general of the Intelligence Community and the State Department, which detailed the existence of “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”
On July 6, 2015, the IGs for the Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, pursuant to the Intelligence Authorization Act. The FBI then formally opened an investigation on July 10, 2015.
In either late 2015 or early 2016, the IC inspector general, Chuck McCullough, sent Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan to meet with the FBI in order to detail the anomaly that had been uncovered. That meeting was attended by four individuals, including Strzok, then-Executive Assistant Director John Giacalone, and then-Section Chief Dean Chappell. The identity of the fourth individual remains unknown, though Moffa, who also met with the IG at various times, is a possible candidate. Charles Kable, who also met with the ICIG at several points, is another possible candidate.
Priestap testified that he had not been briefed on the Clinton server anomaly by Strzok, noting “this would have been a big deal.”
“I am not aware of any evidence that demonstrated that. I’m also not aware of any evidence that my team or anybody reporting to me on this had advised me that there were anomalies that couldn’t be accounted for. I don’t recall that,” he said.
Priestap’s admission that this was all new information to him, prompted an observation from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) that Strzok appeared to be exercising significant investigative control:
Mr. Meadows: “It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?”
Mr. Priestap: “Peter and Jon, yeah.”
As Meadows noted during testimony, this matter still had to be officially “closed out” by the FBI before the official closing of the Clinton investigation. Strzok personally called the IC inspector general within minutes of Comey’s July 5, 2016, press conference on the Clinton investigation, telling him that the FBI would be sending a “referral to close it out.”
Meadows seemed genuinely surprised that Strzok had apparently kept this information successfully hidden from Priestap, noting, “I’m a Member from North Carolina, and you’re saying that I have better intel than you do?” Source. I'm trying to dig a little to see what I can find on these alleged metadata anomalies. If this is true, then all the investigation team should be prosecuted, but I doubt they would take so many risks, it sounds really crazy. So I'm trying to see what I can find (technical details, but I doubt I'll find them). The part about Louis Gohmert, either you try to be fair and also trust what the dems have to say about Trump's team lying to congress, either you don't care and trust only republicans, not dems. If what he said was true and Strzok lied, then why haven't the House and DOJ pushed for prosecution for lying to Congress ? (both controlled by Reps at the time...) I'll come back after getting more details.
You're certainly asking the right questions. I don't have any good answers for you. But at least now you can see why so many people are so angry at the DOJ, FBI, and even Congress. Why are we wasting time with stupid Trump-related process crimes when there's all of this other stuff going on? When people on the right bitch about the "deep state," this is what they're talking about.
With regards to the email server in particular, I can think of a few reasons as to why no one wants it fully investigated and exposed. First, there's the obvious political ramifications of prosecuting a Clinton who was expected to be president in 2016. Beyond that, however, there are some national security issues at stake. It may be that the extent of the damage done from the compromise is so severe that people have deemed that the public simply can't be allowed to know about it, kinda like how the US government hid from the American people the true extent of the damage done at Pearl Harbor until after the war. Remember a few years ago when it was reported that the Chinese purged/killed virtually all of the US intelligence assets in China? What if the those assets were compromised as a direct result of the Chinese being able to access Hillary's server? We already know that her emails contained the type of special access information that concerned intelligence assets, so this isn't exactly far-fetched speculation (even if it is speculative).
|
On February 06 2019 03:01 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2019 02:20 Nouar wrote:On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not overlooking anyone's personal use of emails. But to my knowledge, no one did what Hillary did. Nor was anyone else's email compromised to the degree that Hillary's was. Now, if you want to take the position that Hillary's use of personal email was investigated, I think that's fair. There was quite a bit of investigation into it. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it was all swept under the rug by DOJ rather than prosecuted as it should have been. Again, Comey outlined in explicit detail how she violated the law even though he purposefully tweaked some of the language that he used to justify not referring her for prosecution. As an IT security specialist, and ex-custodian of government cryptos, I have issue with the assumption that Hillary's emails were compromised. First, IT security : her server was not hacked to the extent of the available knowledge and expertise conducted... So no, her email server, while underprotected (since it was accessible via RDP hence somewhat vulnerable), has not been compromised until proven otherwise. Then a fucking idiot (sorry, no other words) deleted emails after their retention was ordered, as we was supposed to have done the deletion prior to the request but failed to do so. Second, classified data assets compromission is by definition when classified information is out in the open (lost, opened in an unsecured area where unauthorized eyes can land on them, other reasons) and has been potentially disseminated. While there was definitely a breach of the rules in dealing with classified information, it was not determined that she had lost classified data due to that. (If you compare to the guy that took pictures of classified areas of a submarine, and SENT THEM to someone else, that shouldn't have had access to those. That guy, whom Trump often referred to, has been convicted due to that dissemination of information). She did lie about the fact that it contained no classified information, and probably should have been charged with that, at least. Though it seems the messages in question were not really properly marked, and from experience, politicians, though they should, are usually not proficient enough in classifications. HRC was not a newbie, she should know, but it's pretty hard to prove the intent to lie/deceive. Again, you are supposedly a lawyer, but often use very specific words in the wrong way. Please be careful. I'm not assuming anything. Members of the house intel committee have repeatedly stated that her email was compromised by multiple foreign agencies. Hell, Louis Gohmert said that the Chinese were reading her email in real time. EDIT: For example.... The Clinton Server Anomalies
At two points during Priestap’s testimony, the possibility of access by a foreign adversary to Clinton’s server was discussed. This issue was first broached during testimony by Horowitz and was again explored during Strzok’s public testimony under questioning from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
“The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an ‘anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,’” Gohmert said.
“It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added.
The Clinton email server investigation originated from an assessment contained within a June 29, 2015, memo from the inspectors general of the Intelligence Community and the State Department, which detailed the existence of “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”
On July 6, 2015, the IGs for the Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, pursuant to the Intelligence Authorization Act. The FBI then formally opened an investigation on July 10, 2015.
In either late 2015 or early 2016, the IC inspector general, Chuck McCullough, sent Frank Rucker and Janette McMillan to meet with the FBI in order to detail the anomaly that had been uncovered. That meeting was attended by four individuals, including Strzok, then-Executive Assistant Director John Giacalone, and then-Section Chief Dean Chappell. The identity of the fourth individual remains unknown, though Moffa, who also met with the IG at various times, is a possible candidate. Charles Kable, who also met with the ICIG at several points, is another possible candidate.
Priestap testified that he had not been briefed on the Clinton server anomaly by Strzok, noting “this would have been a big deal.”
“I am not aware of any evidence that demonstrated that. I’m also not aware of any evidence that my team or anybody reporting to me on this had advised me that there were anomalies that couldn’t be accounted for. I don’t recall that,” he said.
Priestap’s admission that this was all new information to him, prompted an observation from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) that Strzok appeared to be exercising significant investigative control:
Mr. Meadows: “It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?”
Mr. Priestap: “Peter and Jon, yeah.”
As Meadows noted during testimony, this matter still had to be officially “closed out” by the FBI before the official closing of the Clinton investigation. Strzok personally called the IC inspector general within minutes of Comey’s July 5, 2016, press conference on the Clinton investigation, telling him that the FBI would be sending a “referral to close it out.”
Meadows seemed genuinely surprised that Strzok had apparently kept this information successfully hidden from Priestap, noting, “I’m a Member from North Carolina, and you’re saying that I have better intel than you do?” Source. I'm trying to dig a little to see what I can find on these alleged metadata anomalies. If this is true, then all the investigation team should be prosecuted, but I doubt they would take so many risks, it sounds really crazy. So I'm trying to see what I can find (technical details, but I doubt I'll find them). The part about Louis Gohmert, either you try to be fair and also trust what the dems have to say about Trump's team lying to congress, either you don't care and trust only republicans, not dems. If what he said was true and Strzok lied, then why haven't the House and DOJ pushed for prosecution for lying to Congress ? (both controlled by Reps at the time...) I'll come back after getting more details.
https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary R. Clinton Part 01 of 28/view
Page 11 : A notice recommended employees to avoid conducting state business with personnal emails. Then two lines later, a policy requiring those who conduct state business on a personal email to forward a copy to a State address for record-keeping. This is probably why she's not being prosecuted for the private mail server itself.
Page 17 : X had trouble exporting from Mac to Exchange so he sent the whole email archive from Clinton to a personal gmail account. Unskilled, dangerous idiot.
Page 20 : Confidential mails with no distinctive headers, only a (C) somewhere on top the paragraph. And that's why we use plugins like Classify to properly and compulsorily mark emails, since non-tech people are not versed in those and easily confused.
Page 27 : forensic analysis, sadly very partial due to 3 servers over the years. (btw in an earlier page, it was mentioned that the server admin was requested to encrypt the mails to avoid anyone but the recipient being able to access those. He did not do it to be able to troubleshoot potential email issues. Dangerous idiot #2.
Page 29 : one suspicious login via TOR on a staffer's email that did not know TOR. (so that's one address compromised)
Page 31 : 2011, a memo urging state employees to limit the use of personal emails for State business (wtf, this should not be urging, these should be expressly forbidding... What were their IT SecOffs doing??), stating that "some home systems have been compromised and reconfigured to forward copies to an undisclosed recipient" (does not say it happened to HRC's server)
Page 32 : Blumenthal had his AOL account compromised, and a Confidential email chain disseminated. Now that is a proper compromission.
Page 32 : the metadata of the headers have been extracted to produce electronic signatures and try to find these emails in the available databases, from FBI and other agencies, and even foreign intelligence agencies, to see if they were disseminated. No results. It's at this step that if there were strange things in the metadata, it would have appeared clearly. VERY clearly. So trying to not disclose that part would be very strange, especially since Horowitz made another investigation afterwards.
In the army, she would have been punished with administrative sanctions for that (I was, for vaguely related items, where no information was actually disseminated. Not the US army of course). However, pushing a criminal investigation with these kind of elements would not bring conclusive charges and would be a waste.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-fbi-ignored-major-lead-on-clinton-emails-closed-door-testimonies-suggest_2782019.html
China receiving emails in real time : 2 anonymous sources to FOX and DailyCaller. No proof, logs or anything available that I can find.
Well, it says that Horowitz investigation did not talk about that lead in the report, so I am not going to read it (3 days saved, yeah !)
https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398647
Yeah, well. It seems Rucker was not called to testify. Why ? The Reps were in control of Senate and House. So while it's concerning if true, they had ample opportunity to bring McCullough and Rucker to testify. They did not. I cannot find that ICIG report available, and while Gohmert said that ICIG can document that, they did not. So I call bullshit on it.
By the way China is only a "likely culprit" in this case.
Conclusion : yes, you ARE assuming the server was compromised, as the information is coming from conservative outlets on anonymous sources, and a lone Republican (when it's from Dems, you are discarding this type of rumor easily). No available information lets us know it was. One user had its credentials found, and its mails accessed. There is no available proof, nor available lead, that it was compromised. I will trust you if you can provide me with something showing evidence it was the case (I'd be happy with the ICIG supposed report)
On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
With regards to the email server in particular, I can think of a few reasons as to why no one wants it fully investigated and exposed.
From what I read in the FBI full report (I ate most of the 30+pages), the technical details and the investigation was really thorough and cross-checked, even from random dumps of the emails that were leftovers from botched migrations, on old laptops or USBs. I didn't really find any glaring holes. (I cannot tell you my exact job obviously, but I have been dealing with these kind of deep dives for some time).
Of course, the files themselves are not included, and if that ICIG report is true, it IS a big deal. But in this case, it looks to me that the "deep state" is a wish to explain that the results do not match with conservatives expectations (as is the case on some of Trump's own investigations)
On February 06 2019 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
It may be that the extent of the damage done from the compromise is so severe that people have deemed that the public simply can't be allowed to know about it, kinda like how the US government hid from the American people the true extent of the damage done at Pearl Harbor until after the war. Remember a few years ago when it was reported that the Chinese purged/killed virtually all of the US intelligence assets in China?
Right, but honestly, are you even fathoming the damage Trump's way of governing is doing to the world and the US first and foremost ? It's a lot worse. I'm not even talking about the US in its internal microcosm, I'm talking about the place and rank of the US around the world, your leadership position. Africa has been abandoned to China, you are alienating all your historic allies, to the benefit of Russia or China down the line, the US isn't to be trusted anymore (I mean, we already did not trust it to an extent, but diplomacy worked). Most of the countries are bracing and hoping that the norm will return after 2020, and we can resume relationships as usual, but a lot has been irreparably damaged severely. Results won't be shown for quite a long time though.
Everything is reduced to money and cost by POTUS, he has no grasp on long term investment, stability or working together for future benefits. Only trying to destroy everything else and unbalance what he can, in hope of short-term gains for the US (questionable) and his image. He has no contingency plan in case things go south, and does not intend to take responsibility when things turn sour.
I could care less about internal US policies.
Pearl Harbor, are you talking about the advance knowledge conspiracy theory ? Well... Even if true, it's the same as 9/11 Rumsfeld/Bush theory to trigger a war on terror. Also, have you heard of Coventry and Enigma ?
edit : and f***, due to that, I missed the first game of Secret v. Liquid :'( (Dota2)
|
quick question, wasn’t Clinton impeached for process crimes? speaking to whether it’s a waste of time or not. previous republican led congresses have apparently decided differently, no?
|
On February 06 2019 05:31 brian wrote:
quick question, wasn’t Clinton impeached for process crimes? asking as means to speaking to whether it’s a waste of time or not. previous republican led congresses have apparently decided differently, no?
He was for lying to the grand jury, witness tampering, and on obstruction charges I believe. However, proving intent to lie and deceive is pretty hard, and it would have to be in court and not in front of Congress since she's not president. Ignoring politic games in Congress, I'm not even sure there is enough basis to prove the intent without reasonable doubt here in front of a jury. Documents were poorly identified, and officials are notoriously uninterested in classification.
In Clinton's impeachment, the lies were pretty clear and there was proof. He was also cited for civil contempt of court for his refusal to testify truthfully.
|
They really shouldn't allow this man to defile the SOTU tradition and venue by giving these speeches. The founders' intent was for low info rabble rousers to not get elected.
|
I like how the Democrats cannot bring themselves to cheer for the good economy.
|
God, the Democrats cannot even applaud the arrest of sex traffickers.
|
Should have just nominated Jeb if you wanted to beg for clapping.
|
If you were in the audience while Mao was giving a speech would you applaud at his wins?
|
What good economy? You mean for the 1%? Oh hell yea, it was great for them, maybe a few other top percenters yea sure. But here's the other reality of it, for the bottom earners, and even most of the middle class are getting destroyed. I typically try to either owe very little or returned something small depending on what. This year I definitely owe from the looks of it, even though I feel like I'm already putting 30% in when I probably shouldn't be...
And then there is the following, mind you the site is one of the few that I can find with multiple complaints in one place. The current tax plan is going to destroy what ever "good economy" you think of.
https://wokesloth.com/trump-voters-furious-tax-plan/jessi/
|
On February 06 2019 12:38 IgnE wrote:
If you were in the audience while Mao was giving a speech would you applaud at his wins?
I’m not sure that I want to be known as the party of sex trafficking.
|
On February 06 2019 11:45 xDaunt wrote:
God, the Democrats cannot even applaud the arrest of sex traffickers.
A reflection of how utterly toxic Trump's Presidency is, no? Perhaps an indication that his combative style isn't really working?
|
On February 06 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
I disagree with your construction of what the trans community is doing. Yes, there certainly is a categorization component of their advocacy in which they are redefining sex and gender and creating more boxes than just "male" and "female." But this categorization component is only skin deep. The real action lies in the boxes that they are creating and how those boxes are defined. Those boxes are defined through concepts of self-identity. So what we ultimately get is gender as a spectrum in which the individuals place themselves. And just to complicate matters, gender is now a fluid concept, so people can move themselves up and down the spectrum as they see fit. The intellectual foundation for this is dubious at best.
Purely solipsistic conceptions of gender identity are just bad ontology, and undermine the serious intellectual foundations (e.g. Judith Butler) from which most of the popularized SJW rhetoric sprouted. But many ordinary people in their everydayness operate with pretty bad ontologies. So if we are going to be seriously talking about gender (and how that relates to truth) we have to get more specific. If your complaint is just that people on social media who don't read books say stupid things, then I won't argue with you.
For the most part, I really don't care what people do in their private lives and how they view themselves. What I do care about is the extent to which these otherwise private views affect the greater society. To your point, I certainly get that "compelling" people to answer the gender/sex question in a certain way may negatively impact those people. But I am not prepared to conclude that their interests are as important as the greater majority's. The trans community is minuscule part of the greater population. While I don't mind giving them basic protections, they must conform to us rather than impose their views upon us.
Well when a bunch of private people get together and start talking to each other in their own language, it's not really that private anymore. The SJW community is not a miniscule part of the greater population, at least using a broad definition for SJW as the right leaning posters on this board do. It actually seems like they are winning, and will win.
|
On February 06 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
For the most part, I really don't care what people do in their private lives and how they view themselves. What I do care about is the extent to which these otherwise private views affect the greater society. To your point, I certainly get that "compelling" people to answer the gender/sex question in a certain way may negatively impact those people. But I am not prepared to conclude that their interests are as important as the greater majority's. The trans community is minuscule part of the greater population. While I don't mind giving them basic protections, they must conform to us rather than impose their views upon us.
Do you not think the explosion of gender non-binary culture and the younger generation's acceptance of this is evidence that your statistical assumption about the 'greater majority' -specifically about how great that majority is - may be slightly skewed, probably due to the extreme social punishment that has traditionally gone with being gender non-conforming?
|
I'm sure the inevitable international investigations surely will show Trump's who's who of war criminals and wanna-be war criminals had no idea US weapons were ending up in ISIL/ISIS hands. This is a humanitarian crisis we are supporting while our ally bombs and starves kids on purpose.
This is one of many reasons the bipartisan support of imperialism and repudiation of socialism concerns me deeply. Particularly when aligned with what seems to be increasingly inevitable chaos in Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia and its coalition partner in Yemen, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) transferred US-made weapons to al-Qaeda-linked groups and a Salafi militia whose commander who once "served with" the Yemeni branch of ISIL, a CNN investigation has found.
...according to CNN, the coalition was using US-manufactured weapons "as a form of currency to buy the loyalties of militias or tribes, bolster chosen armed actors, and influence the complex political landscape," local commanders and analysts said.
Citing the situation in the flashpoint city of Taiz, CNN said that al-Qaeda had forged "advantageous alliances with the pro-Saudi militias they fought alongside".
It said the Abu al-Abbas Brigade possessed US-made Oshkosh armoured vehicles that were paraded through the city in a 2015 show of force.
Abu al-Abbas, the militia's founder, was sanctioned by the US in 2017 for allegedly financing al-Qaeda and the Yemeni chapter of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group.
"The coalition is still supporting me," al-Abbas said in an interview in December with the Washington Post. "If I really was a terrorist, they would have taken me in for questioning."
According to CNN, his group still enjoyed support from the Saudi-led coalition and was absorbed into the coalition-supported 35th Brigade of the Yemeni army.
The US is by far the biggest supplier of arms to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and its support is crucial to the Saudi-led coalition's continuing war in Yemen.
In his first overseas trip as president, US President Donald Trump sealed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth about $110bn over several years. The agreement was said to be aimed at bolstering security "in the face of Iranian threats".
Out of the 18,000-plus raids the Saudi-UAE coalition has launched since the start of the conflict, nearly a third of all bombs have hit civilian targets, according to the Yemen Data Project, a monitor of the war in Yemen.
www.aljazeera.com
|
On February 06 2019 17:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
For the most part, I really don't care what people do in their private lives and how they view themselves. What I do care about is the extent to which these otherwise private views affect the greater society. To your point, I certainly get that "compelling" people to answer the gender/sex question in a certain way may negatively impact those people. But I am not prepared to conclude that their interests are as important as the greater majority's. The trans community is minuscule part of the greater population. While I don't mind giving them basic protections, they must conform to us rather than impose their views upon us. Do you not think the explosion of gender non-binary culture and the younger generation's acceptance of this is evidence that your statistical assumption about the 'greater majority' -specifically about how great that majority is - may be slightly skewed, probably due to the extreme social punishment that has traditionally gone with being gender non-conforming?
Not really. The "acceptance" that we are seeing isn't the result of a new majority being formed so much as it is the product of a cultural tyranny being imposed by a relatively small minority. Though hard to define, most surveys that I have seen put the SJW crowd at anywhere between 8 and perhaps as high as 20% of the population. SJWs have simply been very effective at leveraging certain key positions to wipe out political resistance or otherwise silence it (ie deplatforming). Historically, most people have preferred to keep their head down rather than deal with the potential ramifications of a fight. It's just recently that we have started to see something resembling a resistance. We'll see what happens, but I wouldn't presume that current SJW gains are permanent.
|
On February 06 2019 12:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2019 12:38 IgnE wrote:
If you were in the audience while Mao was giving a speech would you applaud at his wins? I’m not sure that I want to be known as the party of sex trafficking.
On the other hand they had no problem dancing and cheering themselves. Shows what they really care about lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
