Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Brewmaster -Nurot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by VanishingAct View Post
    Imagine believing what the guardian journalists say. Only people who believe them are the same ones that think Trump colluded with Putin. They hate Trump, most of them hate themselves and America in general.
    No, but I sort of believe what Mueller's report says. But, then again you would have had to actually read the article to have known it was based on the Mueller report. It helps to read an article before commenting on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    The FBI legitimately thinks we are braindead and you guys are proving them right.
    How rife with irony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    GRU hack doesn't rule out thumb drive at all though, it's not like GRU blocked all thumb drives from working.

    "cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016" - do you think this speaks about GRU operatives visiting Assange or what?
    That's literally not how the English language works. Without mentioning any other potential sources of the hack, "intermediaries" is indicative of someone at least linked to the GRU delivering it on their behalf. It doesn't even necessarily have to be Russian. So the report clearly states that the GRU did the hacking, and through some means got the information to Assange.

    If you're pushing some greater conspiracy where someone stole the hacked information from the GRU, or a Democrat working for the DNC coincidentally sent the same hacked information to Assange, then the burden of proof is definitely on you, because no where in the report does it allude to any of that.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by -Nurot View Post
    That's literally not how the English language works. Without mentioning any other potential sources of the hack, "intermediaries" is indicative of someone at least linked to the GRU delivering it on their behalf.
    Can be indicative; but then it would make sense to indict those people as agents of GRU.

    It doesn't even necessarily have to be Russian. So the report clearly states that the GRU did the hacking, and through some means got the information to Assange.
    That "GRU did hacking", and that "Through some means DNC info got to Assange, possibly through visitors"; it doesn't necessarily link them together.

    At least as far as this particular piece goes. Maybe some point of Mueller report does prove those are one and the same. *shrug*

    They have all those specific bits on GRU - that they searched here this and that and then used it elsewhere; maybe there is some point somewhere about data transfer to Wikileaks too, but i haven't seen anything like that yet.

    There seems to be attempt at coordinating release and that's it.

    If you're pushing some greater conspiracy where someone stole the hacked information from the GRU, or a Democrat working for the DNC coincidentally sent the same hacked information to Assange, then the burden of proof is definitely on you, because no where in the report does it allude to any of that.
    I'm not pushing for this "greater conspiracy", i'm just noting that FBI "cannot rule it out", that's all.

    Which is interesting, but ultimately pointless.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2019-04-19 at 01:34 PM.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    You see, these comments come between B) and C). That's why the article notes "more releases". Ie, it's implying that Trump had foreknowledge of the Podesta leaks, not the DNC leaks which had already happened.
    WikiLeaks publicly & repeatedly teased its forthcoming publications well before the Roger Stone "Podesta" tweets.
    Anti-War / Anti-CIA / Cynic

  4. #24
    Banned Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    4,150
    Quote Originally Posted by VanishingAct View Post
    Imagine believing what the guardian journalists say. Only people who believe them are the same ones that think Trump colluded with Putin. They hate Trump, most of them hate themselves and America in general.
    Imagine believing what trump says. Only people who believe him believe that the democrats colluded with Putin. They hate liberals, and therefore most of them hate America in general.


    In the meantime, there are 10 documented cases of trump trying to be a criminal. Sucks to be him.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Can be indicative; but then it would make sense to indict those people as agents of GRU.

    That "GRU did hacking", and that "Through some means DNC info got to Assange, possibly through visitors"; it doesn't necessarily link them together.

    At least as far as this particular piece goes. Maybe some point of Mueller report does prove those are one and the same. *shrug*

    They have all those specific bits on GRU - that they searched here this and that and then used it elsewhere; maybe there is some point somewhere about data transfer to Wikileaks too, but i haven't seen anything like that yet.

    There seems to be attempt at coordinating release and that's it.

    I'm not pushing for this "greater conspiracy", i'm just noting that FBI "cannot rule it out", that's all.

    Which is interesting, but ultimately pointless.
    People keep overlooking the important info. The report specifically says that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were not responsible for the DNC leaks and podesta emails etc. They also have no evidence that either DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 were the GRU...their evidence was that a russian server was accessed and used to basically google a few phrases and words that were then used a few hours later by guccifer 2.0 talking about the hacker. They didn't even trace any IP's between those outlets and russia, they have no evidence at all.

    Then they attribute those groups emailing wikileaks and trying to "coordinate releases" which makes no sense as being the source of leaks they weren't even involved in. It's the most flimsy narrative you could imagine. They just want russia to be the bad guys.

    And the idea that fake groups would want to try to email wikileaks to discredit them is not far fetched at all. People don't seem to be aware of the whole Toddandclare.com dating site thing. Around the time all of this was going on that dating site also emailed wikileaks saying they have info. Once in contact with wikieaks they then were like, "JK actually we're the russian government and want to help you. We are willing to pay you this much money blah blah blah." Wikileaks shut them down and so then they started trying to say that assange used their site to date underage girls which wasn't even possible on their site. People looked into the site and the people behind it doing some crazy autistic 4chan style sleuthing. Turns out the website was a front company connected to an intel operative who was also seen in pictures with hillary clinton.

    All of this shit was revealed and somehow people still think DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 which popped out of nowhere after the dnc leaks, didn't actually originate any leaks, and conveniently tried to talk to wikileaks and discredit them were legit. And where is the part about toddandclare in the mueller report? They completely leave it out, just ignore it everyone.
    Last edited by dippinsawse; 2019-04-19 at 11:18 PM.

  6. #26
    P.S. There's a searchable version of the report up now: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-document.html

    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    Nothing you linked refutes what I said. Where is the part where it says either of these fake hacker groups were proven to have hacked anything? Where is the evidence of them being linked to russia?



    Seriously, save yourself further embarrassment and read the whole thing. I'm trying to help you here:

    https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    GRU hack doesn't rule out thumb drive at all though, it's not like GRU blocked all thumb drives from working.
    Ahahaha, so you now accept that the GRU was responsible for the hack, and are just arguing about whether or not they got it to Assange on a thumb drive? Lel.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pipebomb View Post
    WikiLeaks publicly & repeatedly teased its forthcoming publications well before the Roger Stone "Podesta" tweets.
    Okay, can you link me to a tweet they made about forthcoming leaks between the 22 Jul leaks and the 7 Oct leaks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    It also says Mueller’s office “cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016”.

    Wait, they are saying they cannot rule out "insider thumb drive" version of DNC hack -> Wikileaks rather then GRU?

    Interesting.
    Just to put this to bed, full context:





    So we know they sent them the July leaks via email, and they sent a similar appearing email in September, and then on Oct 7 Wikileaks released their Podesta emails 30 minutes after the Access Hollywood tape came out.

    Ie, we know the GRU emailed them the July leaks, they simply can't be sure whether the October leaks were sent in that email or via thumb drive (sure looks like it was email to me). They're just doing due diligence here, whether or not they used a thumb drive there is zero doubt these leaks came from the GRU and Wikileaks knew it and lied about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Okay, can you link me to a tweet they made about forthcoming leaks between the 22 Jul leaks and the 7 Oct leaks?
    This is just my first search result.

    Assange: Clinton leaks could come as early as next week
    By CRISTIANO LIMA 09/06/2016

    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...xt-week-227811
    Anti-War / Anti-CIA / Cynic

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post

    Seriously, save yourself further embarrassment and read the whole thing. I'm trying to help you here:

    You're not understanding and are not discussing anything I said. I guess I have to lay it out for you.

    The FBI has no evidence of the GRU hacking the DNC or podesta. None of that info was first released by them. All of the democrat affiliates that were hacked that they are talking about WERE NOT IN THE DNC RELEASE BY WIKILEAKS. Those were separate hacks and they were also previously released before DCLeaks even released them. You are misunderstanding the report and making incorrect assumptions which is probably why they wrote it that way. To say that as if it means the DCLeaks material was at all related to the wikileaks releases is false. The only DNC material those groups "released", again, were AFTER they were already released by wikileaks.... I don't know how many times I have to tell you this. Even assuming that the GRU was behind DCLeaks it makes no sense to believe that DCLeaks created their own site, gave the actual DNC "hack" to wikileaks, and then released completely different and then old info AFTER the wikileaks releases that also included altered, fake information, and then AFTER those leaks THEN try to DM them publicly to try to coordinate releases. Not to mention there is literally zero evidence that wikileaks received anything from russia or DCLeaks.

    Then we have the fact that there is no evidence that links the GRU to DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0. They have no IP trail between them. No financing trail between them. Nothing. All they have is what the DNC's security said which is meaningless because they are on the DNC's dime (and they didn't provide any actual evidence either). Beyond that they have only been able to speculate based on the fact that russia has specific hacking/intel teams and that searches that came from a russian server, which anyone could have done even from outside of russia, were similar to what guccifer 2.0 said in a wordpress blog hours later claiming credit for the hacks. If you think that is anything remotely resembling evidence that they are connected you are a fool. Those searches didn't even come from the same IP as Guccifer 2.0, it's complete nonsense to put that forward as evidence.

    Did you forget that guccifer 2.0 didn't actually release any legitimate info? Did you stop to think that if the GRU was behind guccifer 2.0 that it makes ZERO sense for them to claim credit for the hacks in that wordpress? Did you stop to think that it makes no sense for them to directly try to message wikileaks on a public platform to (pretend to) plan to send them leaks instead of sending them through wikileaks' untraceable dropbox service...and all of that AFTER wikileaks already released the leaks? Why...it almost seems as if the only motivation for these groups was to get caught and try to connect it to wikileaks...If their actual goal was to release info with credible impact on the US election NONE of that makes sense.


    So again, where is the evidence that either of those groups hacked the DNC? There isn't any. Where is the evidence that either of those groups are connected to the russian government? There isn't any. And where is the evidence that wikileaks received their leaks from any of them? There isn't any. If you want to keep acting like what I am saying isn't the obvious truth that it is, show me the evidence. If you read all of this shit and the intel report from two years ago you would already know they STILL have not offered ANY evidence. And now they are saying everything as if it's fact without providing the time frames that discredit what they are even saying and you think oh okay well they said it's true so I guess that's evidence...hey I heard iraq has WMD's again let's go invade them!
    Last edited by dippinsawse; 2019-04-20 at 03:49 AM.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    It also says Mueller’s office “cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016”.

    Wait, they are saying they cannot rule out "insider thumb drive" version of DNC hack -> Wikileaks rather then GRU?

    Interesting.
    Are you really arguing about semantics of the intermediary using a thumb drive or not? They also didn't rule out morse code, thousands of floppy disks, carrier pigeons, two cans with a string between them, or mailing every single email with pink envelopes.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontrike View Post
    Are you really arguing about semantics of the intermediary using a thumb drive or not? They also didn't rule out morse code, thousands of floppy disks, carrier pigeons, two cans with a string between them, or mailing every single email with pink envelopes.
    If they don't know how it happened then how do they know it happened? That's why this is so stupid. They don't have evidence that they in any way gave the leaks to wikileaks? Then how do they know? They don't know where the leak came from because they didn't even look at the server either, the DNC didn't let them. So their whole claim comes down to, "Well russia has hackers and wikileaks released info that was claimed to have been hacked so BOOM the russians hacked it and gave it to wikileaks. Case closed."

    It's like if someone steals your car and you don't let the police look at any registration information of your car to be able to identify it. Then they see someone across town has the same model of car so they arrest them assuming they stole it without any attempt to see where they got the car or way to link that to theft.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Your denial of FBI work is amusing, but counter-productive.
    The whole investigation was started based on shoddy FBI work, or did you forget that?
    Quote Originally Posted by blobbydan View Post
    We're all doomed. Let these retards shuffle the chairs on the titanic. They can die in a safe space if they want to... Whatever. What a miserable joke this life is. I can't wait until it's all finally over and I can return to the sweet oblivion of the void.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Pipebomb View Post
    This is just my first search result.

    Assange: Clinton leaks could come as early as next week
    By CRISTIANO LIMA 09/06/2016

    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...xt-week-227811
    That's from June, referring to the July leaks which were mentioned above. This is about the October leaks. I thought I'd made that clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    The whole investigation was started based on shoddy FBI work, or did you forget that?
    How's that Kool-aid tasting these days?

    The investigation was started because we elected a president with an uprecedented amount of corruption and scandals tied to him and his campaign team, or did you forget about the countless indictments and several Trump campaign officials already or about to serve jail time?
    Quote Originally Posted by Elba View Post
    Klling a new born is not much morally different than a late term abortion. Should be avoided, but it's not like it is an actual person yet.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    You're not understanding and are not discussing anything I said. I guess I have to lay it out for you.

    The FBI has no evidence of the GRU hacking the DNC or podesta.
    Ah I see, you're just going to scream FAKE NEWS no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by dippinsawse View Post
    And now they are saying everything as if it's fact without providing the time frames that discredit what they are even saying and you think oh okay well they said it's true so I guess that's evidence...hey I heard iraq has WMD's again let's go invade them!
    You're thinking of the CIA, not the FBI.

    And you can stop pushing this ridiculous lie, the fully unredacted version of the 2002 Iraq assessment by the CIA has been released for years now. It confirms what everyone with a brain knew at the time - that the Bush Administration lied about its contents. The CIA didn't lie, the last Republican administration did. What a shock.

    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/h...15-3?r=US&IR=T

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    The whole investigation was started based on shoddy FBI work, or did you forget that?
    Are you referring to the Steele dossier?

    This investigation wasn't started by the Steele dossier, it was started when Trump fired Comey for the FBI's investigation of his campaign. THAT investigation started when George Papadopoulos let it slip to an Australian diplomat that Russia had dirt on Clinton. He reported the incident to the US authorities. This predates the Steele dossier.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...31-h0bpn9.html

    The FBI’s investigation originated with George Papadopoulos, not Christopher Steele
    We’ve known since December 2017 that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began in July 2016 — months before the FBI was even alerted to the existence of the Steele dossier.

    The inciting incident, according to Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo at the New York Times, had to do with WikiLeaks, which published hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in July 2016. Those emails prompted Australia’s top diplomat in Britain to inform his American counterparts about a conversation he had two months earlier with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign.

    During a night of heavy drinking in London, Papadopoulos bragged to the Australian about his knowledge that Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign,” as the Times put it. Papadopoulos has since agreed to cooperate with the Mueller investigation and was sentenced to just 14 days in jail, even though Mueller’s team in a court filing said he “did not provide ‘substantial assistance.’”

    You don’t have to take the Times’s word for it. Even the so-called “Nunes memo,” prepared by then-House Intelligence Committee chair and staunch Trump ally Devin Nunes (R-CA) and released about a year ago, acknowledges that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was “triggered” by evidence presented to American officials about Papadopoulos having secretive contacts with Kremlin agents when it was released about a year ago.

    In short, the Russia investigation would have existed even if the Steele dossier never did. But Trump and Fox News are not about to let the facts get in the way of their preferred narrative.
    https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/182770...ump-witch-hunt

    We've known about this for years now, you can stop lying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    The whole investigation was started based on shoddy FBI work, or did you forget that?
    No, the investigation was started cuz Papadopolous blabbed his fat mouth while he was drunk that they were getting help from the Russians. And he that was right.
    Master List of Why Trump is a Misogynist, Racist, Fascist, Homophobic Criminal:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrump...se_megathread/

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    That's from June, referring to the July leaks which were mentioned above. This is about the October leaks. I thought I'd made that clear.
    You from EU, maybe some confusion in the date format?

    It's from September 6th and he mentions

    "leaks on Hillary Clinton and other American politicians are coming “reasonably soon” and that information “teases” could drop as early as the next couple weeks."

    Interview on Hannity form Sep 6th
    Anti-War / Anti-CIA / Cynic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •