The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[SDHornet]

Jeez this has always been much ado about nothing

The Russians didn’t affect the elections and an increasing number of studies back that up

And here’s the thing: that was never the Russians’ intention. It never has been. Russia’s intent in meddling in our elections is to create dissension and lower confidence in our institutions. And in that respect, it could be argued that they were wildly successful this time... with a BIG assist from US media and both political parties. If not for that, it would have just been their usual meddling to no effect

Less known (right now) but much more insidious is China’s interference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. And don't leave out TDS posters on forums like this that have multi-year long threads pedaling the Trump Russia Collusion hoax as gospel...looking at you jelly.

[BDKJMU]

If Trump is impeached, both Bidens are going to be on the witness stand in the Senate trial.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter ... onnections

[kalm]

Jeez this has always been much ado about nothing

The Russians didn’t affect the elections and an increasing number of studies back that up

And here’s the thing: that was never the Russians’ intention. It never has been. Russia’s intent in meddling in our elections is to create dissension and lower confidence in our institutions. And in that respect, it could be argued that they were wildly successful this time... with a BIG assist from US media and both political parties. If not for that, it would have just been their usual meddling to no effect

Less known (right now) but much more insidious is China’s interference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I am looking for is if anyone knows how the FBI determined the Russians hacked the DNC server? Supposedly a system image was given to them by the DNC. Is that enough to determine everything that was said about the hack?

I thought the issue was going to be answered when Roger Stone tried to use the fact the FBI never got to physically look at the server, to get his case dismissed, but I never found any articles refuting his claim. Just the judge not allowing that defense.

Putting your eggs in the Roger Stone basket?

CID is spot on here. Can we just simultaneously put The Biden’s, Trumps, and Clinton’s all on trial?

[kalm]

Turns out...Rudy went rogue....

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/ ... mpaign=nym

Seriously....I’m beginning to enjoy Trump more and more.

He may survive this after all and I’m not sure that’s even bad at this point.

[SeattleGriz]

All I am looking for is if anyone knows how the FBI determined the Russians hacked the DNC server? Supposedly a system image was given to them by the DNC. Is that enough to determine everything that was said about the hack?

I thought the issue was going to be answered when Roger Stone tried to use the fact the FBI never got to physically look at the server, to get his case dismissed, but I never found any articles refuting his claim. Just the judge not allowing that defense.

Putting your eggs in the Roger Stone basket?

CID is spot on here. Can we just simultaneously put The Biden’s, Trumps, and Clinton’s all on trial?

Stone had a good point. If the FBI never had the server in it's actual possession, then how could it forensically determine it was the Russians?

It wasn't so much that I put my eggs in Stone's basket, as much as I wanted an answer to my question, "Can a system image of a computer tell the FBI all they said happened?" I realize not all they said required a system image, like network traffic, etc. Not one person I have asked knows if that is possible or even ventured a guess. I even stated it on Jon's FB page hoping one of his friends would know!

In regards to putting the Bidens, Trumps and Clintons on trial, as I've stated before, I am more ruling class vs the people than I am Dem vs Rep, so let's do it!

[SeattleGriz]

Good point. Jelly keeps saying Shokin was corrupt and that is why Biden had him removed.

Should be pretty easy for the State Department to produce that assessment.

Solomon raises a simple question – was there any official determination ever made to justify Joe Biden’s threat to withhold the billion in aid? If it was because of corruption and not because of the prosecutor looking into Burisma, Hunter Biden’s firm, then where’s the official assessment on it?

[Ibanez]

are you suggesting that the Obama and Trump Administrations and House Republicans are all wrong?

I’ve asked you questions which you flat out ignore or refuse to answer.
do your homework. There’s a great article in Wired about how the Russians were caught.


Spoiler alert - they were dumb enough to not cover their track.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The guy who hadn't seen the Joe Biden tape telling someone to do their homework! Good one dude.

I'm suggesting, like Roger Stone did, but have not seen definitive proof that it was proven the DNC was hacked by the Russians. That was what I was asking about. Was whatever Crowdstrike provided, enough?

If you don't know the answer, that is fine. I just can't find any definitive articles that have backed up Crowdstrikes redacted draft of a report the FBI accepted as proof.

As for the Russians getting caught, there are plenty of articles drawing skepticism that the Russians we're good enough to hack, but were too stupid to cover their tracks.

It might be my experience, as someone who is in cyber-security for one of the largest banks in the country, dealing with thousands of attacks from Russia and China and knowing that when something "originates" from the Ukraine, or SE Asia, it's 9/10 Russia coming from Russia or Russian-backed entities. So while I don't doubt the Russians may have done something via Ukraine which would make people think the Ukrainians are involved, i'm competent enough to know that is the Russians M.O. China and North Korea do it as well, but they aren't as savvy as the Russians.

Pray tell, where are these articles that you refer to? I'd be interested to read what you're reading.

[Ibanez]

Putting your eggs in the Roger Stone basket?

CID is spot on here. Can we just simultaneously put The Biden’s, Trumps, and Clinton’s all on trial?

Stone had a good point. If the FBI never had the server in it's actual possession, then how could it forensically determine it was the Russians?

It wasn't so much that I put my eggs in Stone's basket, as much as I wanted an answer to my question, "Can a system image of a computer tell the FBI all they said happened?" I realize not all they said required a system image, like network traffic, etc. Not one person I have asked knows if that is possible or even ventured a guess. I even stated it on Jon's FB page hoping one of his friends would know!

In regards to putting the Bidens, Trumps and Clintons on trial, as I've stated before, I am more ruling class vs the people than I am Dem vs Rep, so let's do it!

Stone does raise a good point. From what I remember, certain IP address were being monitored and it was only a matter of time before a Russian logged onto a machine w/o going through encryption processes before and that is what gave the US a link to the Russians.

[SeattleGriz]

The guy who hadn't seen the Joe Biden tape telling someone to do their homework! Good one dude.

I'm suggesting, like Roger Stone did, but have not seen definitive proof that it was proven the DNC was hacked by the Russians. That was what I was asking about. Was whatever Crowdstrike provided, enough?

If you don't know the answer, that is fine. I just can't find any definitive articles that have backed up Crowdstrikes redacted draft of a report the FBI accepted as proof.

As for the Russians getting caught, there are plenty of articles drawing skepticism that the Russians we're good enough to hack, but were too stupid to cover their tracks.

It might be my experience, as someone who is in cyber-security for one of the largest banks in the country, dealing with thousands of attacks from Russia and China and knowing that when something "originates" from the Ukraine, or SE Asia, it's 9/10 Russia coming from Russia or Russian-backed entities. So while I don't doubt the Russians may have done something via Ukraine which would make people think the Ukrainians are involved, i'm competent enough to know that is the Russians M.O. China and North Korea do it as well, but they aren't as savvy as the Russians.

Pray tell, where are these articles that you refer to? I'd be interested to read what you're reading.

Here's one.

Not sure where realclear sits, but they do give you stories from both sides.

At the direction of the DNC and DCCC’s legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... laims.html

[houndawg]

Here’s another reason not issuing a subpoena for Bolton is an own-goal for the Dems...

If they run down the clock on the House inquiry and wind up not getting Bolton on record, it may never happen

Because the Senate trial will be an actual court-like trial with rules of evidence, witnesses, etc.

That means no hearsay.

So far the inquiry has really just Sondland only when it comes to direct testimony. If they don’t get Bolton (or Rudy) now, we may never hear from them

This might become a net winner for Trump after all is said and done - he will declare himself vindicated after the Senate puts the House process on trial, and he’ll fundraise off it right up to the general election


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The guy who said everybody was in on it right up the line?

[houndawg]

So, it's not about whether the shit he did was actually impeachable....it's about whether there's "value" in impeaching him....and because there is now "declining support" for impeachment, they may not want to pursue it, regardless of what he did. I swear, their priorities are so fucked up its beyond belief.

Yup. The impeachment has totally imploded, but anyone with a clue knew there was nothing there from the jump. This was all about not having a candidate capable of beating Trump in 2020.

They had one that beat him by 3,000,000 votes and another one that would have beaten him even worse.

[SeattleGriz]

The guy who hadn't seen the Joe Biden tape telling someone to do their homework! Good one dude.

I'm suggesting, like Roger Stone did, but have not seen definitive proof that it was proven the DNC was hacked by the Russians. That was what I was asking about. Was whatever Crowdstrike provided, enough?

If you don't know the answer, that is fine. I just can't find any definitive articles that have backed up Crowdstrikes redacted draft of a report the FBI accepted as proof.

As for the Russians getting caught, there are plenty of articles drawing skepticism that the Russians we're good enough to hack, but were too stupid to cover their tracks.

It might be my experience, as someone who is in cyber-security for one of the largest banks in the country, dealing with thousands of attacks from Russia and China and knowing that when something "originates" from the Ukraine, or SE Asia, it's 9/10 Russia coming from Russia or Russian-backed entities. So while I don't doubt the Russians may have done something via Ukraine which would make people think the Ukrainians are involved, i'm competent enough to know that is the Russians M.O. China and North Korea do it as well, but they aren't as savvy as the Russians.

Pray tell, where are these articles that you refer to? I'd be interested to read what you're reading.

By the way, not implying Ukraine helped Russians hack. The only thing I believe they did was dig up dirt on Manafort who most likely had plenty. If I remember correctly, Manafort tried to use the "double jeopardy" move to try and get his case dismissed. Manafort was previously on trial for making $40 million from some oligarch who made a lot more. The FBI, at that time, felt Manafort was a small fish and let him go. Manafort tried to say you can't prosecute me, when you have already thrown out previous prosecution.

Conservative Treehouse baby.

[SeattleGriz]

Here’s another reason not issuing a subpoena for Bolton is an own-goal for the Dems...

If they run down the clock on the House inquiry and wind up not getting Bolton on record, it may never happen

Because the Senate trial will be an actual court-like trial with rules of evidence, witnesses, etc.

That means no hearsay.

So far the inquiry has really just Sondland only when it comes to direct testimony. If they don’t get Bolton (or Rudy) now, we may never hear from them

This might become a net winner for Trump after all is said and done - he will declare himself vindicated after the Senate puts the House process on trial, and he’ll fundraise off it right up to the general election


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The guy who said everybody was in on it right up the line?

Yes

[GannonFan]

Yup. The impeachment has totally imploded, but anyone with a clue knew there was nothing there from the jump. This was all about not having a candidate capable of beating Trump in 2020.

They had one that beat him by 3,000,000 votes and another one that would have beaten him even worse.

We use electoral votes in this country for Presidential elections, your civics classes in school back in the '50's should have told you this.

[SDHornet]

They had one that beat him by 3,000,000 votes and another one that would have beaten him even worse.

We use electoral votes in this country for Presidential elections, your civics classes in school back in the '50's should have told you this.

houndy being houndy.

[Ibanez]

It might be my experience, as someone who is in cyber-security for one of the largest banks in the country, dealing with thousands of attacks from Russia and China and knowing that when something "originates" from the Ukraine, or SE Asia, it's 9/10 Russia coming from Russia or Russian-backed entities. So while I don't doubt the Russians may have done something via Ukraine which would make people think the Ukrainians are involved, i'm competent enough to know that is the Russians M.O. China and North Korea do it as well, but they aren't as savvy as the Russians.

Pray tell, where are these articles that you refer to? I'd be interested to read what you're reading.

By the way, not implying Ukraine helped Russians hack. The only thing I believe they did was dig up dirt on Manafort who most likely had plenty. If I remember correctly, Manafort tried to use the "double jeopardy" move to try and get his case dismissed. Manafort was previously on trial for making $40 million from some oligarch who made a lot more. The FBI, at that time, felt Manafort was a small fish and let him go. Manafort tried to say you can't prosecute me, when you have already thrown out previous prosecution.

Conservative Treehouse baby.

That’s certainly a possibility. If that’s the case, digging up dirt doesn’t equate to a vast disinformation campaign with the goal of screwing up a national election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

By the way, not implying Ukraine helped Russians hack. The only thing I believe they did was dig up dirt on Manafort who most likely had plenty. If I remember correctly, Manafort tried to use the "double jeopardy" move to try and get his case dismissed. Manafort was previously on trial for making $40 million from some oligarch who made a lot more. The FBI, at that time, felt Manafort was a small fish and let him go. Manafort tried to say you can't prosecute me, when you have already thrown out previous prosecution.

Conservative Treehouse baby.

When was Manafort previously on trial?

[CID1990]

By the way, not implying Ukraine helped Russians hack. The only thing I believe they did was dig up dirt on Manafort who most likely had plenty. If I remember correctly, Manafort tried to use the "double jeopardy" move to try and get his case dismissed. Manafort was previously on trial for making $40 million from some oligarch who made a lot more. The FBI, at that time, felt Manafort was a small fish and let him go. Manafort tried to say you can't prosecute me, when you have already thrown out previous prosecution.

Conservative Treehouse baby.

When was Manafort previously on trial?

I think DOJ declined prosecution, which would render Manafort’s argument moot.. if that’s the one he made

But that begs a separate question - why wasn’t it a big deal back then.... especially with the then Administration’s focus on Ukrainian corruption, hmm?

[UNI88]

They had one that beat him by 3,000,000 votes and another one that would have beaten him even worse.

We use electoral votes in this country for Presidential elections, your civics classes in school back in the 1850's should have told you this.

FYP

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/0 ... nce-074796

But the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee thoroughly investigated that theory, according to people with direct knowledge of the inquiry, and found no evidence that Ukraine waged a top-down interference campaign akin to the Kremlin’s efforts to help Trump win in 2016.

[houndawg]

We use electoral votes in this country for Presidential elections, your civics classes in school back in the 1850's should have told you this.

FYP

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Dem cracks starting to show?

House Dem now sees no 'value' in impeachment, as polls show falling support among independents
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house- ... to-censure

So, it's not about whether the shit he did was actually impeachable....it's about whether there's "value" in impeaching him....and because there is now "declining support" for impeachment, they may not want to pursue it, regardless of what he did. I swear, their priorities are so fucked up its beyond belief.

Why doesn't the admin just put an end to all this by testifying? It would be over next week.

[CID1990]

So, it's not about whether the shit he did was actually impeachable....it's about whether there's "value" in impeaching him....and because there is now "declining support" for impeachment, they may not want to pursue it, regardless of what he did. I swear, their priorities are so fucked up its beyond belief.

Why doesn't the admin just put an end to all this by testifying? It would be over next week.

Because of the age old adage that when your adversaries are Fvcking up you don’t stop them.

I’m just waiting for your “Trump would be in jail already if the Dems weren’t so stupid” schtick

[SeattleGriz]

By the way, not implying Ukraine helped Russians hack. The only thing I believe they did was dig up dirt on Manafort who most likely had plenty. If I remember correctly, Manafort tried to use the "double jeopardy" move to try and get his case dismissed. Manafort was previously on trial for making $40 million from some oligarch who made a lot more. The FBI, at that time, felt Manafort was a small fish and let him go. Manafort tried to say you can't prosecute me, when you have already thrown out previous prosecution.

Conservative Treehouse baby.

When was Manafort previously on trial?

I think CID in his answer is probably closer to the truth. Going off of memory, but you see what I am saying. Manafort is saying you didn't bother back in 2014, so why now?

Here's a Daily Beast article that talks about the 40 mill.

The vast web of transactions was unraveled mainly in 2014 and 2015 during an FBI operation to fight international kleptocracy that ultimately fizzled. The story of that failed effort

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ja ... suspicious

[Skjellyfetti]

In the two days before President Trump forced out the American ambassador to Ukraine in April, his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was on the phone with the White House more than a dozen times.

Phone records cited in the impeachment report released Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee illustrate the sprawling reach of Mr. Giuliani’s campaign first to remove the ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch, then to force Ukraine’s new government to announce criminal investigations for Mr. Trump’s political gain.

That effort accelerated through the spring and summer into a full-court press to force Ukraine’s new president to accede to Mr. Trump’s wishes or risk losing $391 million in military assistance desperately needed to hold off Russian-led forces waging a separatist war in eastern Ukraine.

From March 26 to Aug. 8, as he developed an irregular foreign policy channel that eventually sidelined both National Security Council and State Department aides, Mr. Giuliani — who is not a government employee — was in touch with top-ranking officials, the newly revealed call records suggested.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP
He reached out to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; the national security adviser at the time, John R. Bolton; Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the intelligence committee itself; midlevel White House officials; the Fox News host Sean Hannity; a conservative columnist; an associate who has been charged in a scheme related to Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster; and the owner of a mysterious number, “-1.”

Investigators are trying to determine whether the unidentified phone number belongs to Mr. Trump, said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who leads the House Intelligence Committee. If so, the phone calls with Mr. Giuliani could be further evidence of the president’s direct involvement in the Ukraine affair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... lls-1.html