TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    19 19.19%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    27 27.27%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    43 43.43%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    0 0%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    10 10.10%
Page 313 of 313 FirstFirst ... 63213263268273278283288293298303308309310311312313
Results 7,801 to 7,824 of 7824

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #7801
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    They got a copy of the server, which is identical to the real thing.

  2. #7802
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    no, a copy is NOT the same as the "real" thing, you can include/exclude things into the "copy" you provide.

  3. #7803
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    They also got the forensics info from the third party security firm.

    Also, you can include/exclude things into the real thing too. That's why you have cybersecurity experts investigate things like these.
    Last edited by Starker; 16th Jul 2018 at 17:11.

  4. #7804
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    National security matters should be investigated by the FBI, not "3rd" parties with the FBI just taking their word for it, shows how crooked & corrupt the FBI is and how much power the DNC has.

  5. #7805
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Apparently, it's nothing out of the ordinary:

    https://www.axios.com/why-trumps-whe...2a7490d99.html

    "Where is the server?" President Trump has repeatedly asked this question — including with Russian president Vladimir Putin today — when discussing the indictment of 12 Russians for hacking the Democratic National Committee and other targets in 2016.

    Why it matters: The complaint that the DNC denied the FBI access to its hacked servers is a hallmark of the right's response to the DNC hacking scandal. But people familiar with these kinds of investigations say withholding the server was nothing out of the ordinary.

    The backstory: Rather than turn its server over to the FBI, the DNC hired a private security firm, Crowdstrike, to investigate the hacking.

    Independent investigations are common: According to the law firm BakerHostetler, well over half of the organizations it advises seek out private investigators to investigate hacks. It’s increasingly common for those investigators to handle the low-level forensic work in place of the FBI.

    Leo Taddeo, former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBI’s New York office, told The Hill: "In nine out of 10 cases, we don't need access, we don't ask for access, we don't get access. That's the normal [procedure]. It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up," he added. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient.”
    Beyond the potential for damage, seizing a server can revictimize an organization after a hack. Losing a server can disrupt or even shut down a business or organization.
    Law enforcement is often happy to let private investigators take on the initial phase of investigative work because it saves time and money.
    Another problem with handing over a server: If the FBI mishandles data or, say, leaks it to the press or a political partisan, the organization places itself in jeopardy.

    The server is now just a small part of the evidence: One thing clear from the most recent indictment is that the FBI has now amassed significant additional evidence beyond what Crowdstrike could have obtained in its own investigation.

    Any information dealing with activities or data on other servers — including Russian-affiliated servers in the United States and social media accounts, all of the names and individual actions from specific actors — was obtained separately from the DNC server.
    Even if you read dark meaning into the DNC's use of Crowdstrike rather than the FBI, at this point, it doesn't matter: Friday's indictments show that the FBI has now pieced together a factual account that renders the whole argument moot.

  6. #7806
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    If the DNC is so powerful and the FBI is so crooked, how come the FBI revealed that Clinton was under investigation (which turned out to be nothing), but kept it under wraps that Lord Dampnut's campaign was under investigation?

  7. #7807
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    oh please, the FBI changed the "investigation" into a "matter", Weinner had classified info on the ipad , the DNC is so crooked that the leaked e-mails showing them sticking it to Bernie were overlooked because mean mean Russia, how dare they expose us blah blah blah. Clinton set up the server to bypass FOIA request. she was keeping classified info on a PRIVATE server, anyone else would have been jailed.

  8. #7808
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    For perspective...

    The Hillary email scandal is based on the fact that she mishandled hundreds of classified emails, which constitutes Gross Negligence...which is a felony, regardless of intent.

    The allegation that Trump criminally colluded with the Russian government, is a conspiracy theory.

  9. #7809
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    Your "oh please" tangent didn't actually deal with his point at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    The Hillary email scandal is based on the fact that she mishandled hundreds of classified emails, which constitutes Gross Negligence...which is a felony, regardless of intent.
    We went over this last year. You're wrong.
    Last edited by Trance; 16th Jul 2018 at 17:30.

  10. #7810
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    For perspective...

    One one hand, a relatively commonplace investigation into possible mishandling of classified information, concluding that there is no basis for criminal prosecution.

    On the other hand, credible evidence that a hostile foreign power interfered in US elections and very suspicious behaviour from Lord Dampnut and the people surrounding him, such as Lord Dampnut openly inviting Russians to hack his opponent (which they did right after) and his son accepting help coming on behalf of the Russian government.

    Not to mention all the lies that have since been blown wide open, like multiple people who said they had not met with any Russians turning out to have met with quite a lot of Russians, actually, or Lord Dampnut saying he does not have any business in Russia, despite him signing a letter of intent to begin building a Trump Tower in Moscow.

  11. #7811
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Quote Originally Posted by BBC
    Trump "even welcomed Mr Putin's suggestion that Russia could join the investigation and interview the alleged perpetrators itself!"
    Haha, yeah... We know where this is going.

  12. #7812
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Trance View Post
    Your "oh please" tangent didn't actually deal with his point at all.



    We went over this last year. You're wrong.
    actually YOU are the one who is wrong, she has classified info on a PRIVATE server, her own server full of U.S classified information and she is still not in jail.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/polit...ion/index.html

    no one was prosecuted, who the fuck gives full immunity and then destroys the evidence like the FBI did? classified info on a PRIVATE server, classified info being printed by a pedo POS m'fer who I am guessing did not have the clearance to even view the shit and not one charge or prosecution? give me a break. anyone else with classified info on would be in jail
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lear-submarine
    his "intent" did not matter, why does Clintons?

  13. #7813
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    One one hand, a relatively commonplace investigation into possible mishandling of classified information, concluding that there is no basis for criminal prosecution.
    The mishandling of classified information, by Clinton, is a fact...and the conclusion that it wasn't felony Gross Negligence, is corrupt.

    On the other hand, credible evidence that a hostile foreign power interfered in US elections and very suspicious behaviour from Lord Dampnut and the people surrounding him, such as Lord Dampnut openly inviting Russians to hack his opponent (which they did right after) and his son accepting help coming on behalf of the Russian government.

    Not to mention all the lies that have since been blown wide open, like multiple people who said they had not met with any Russians turning out to have met with quite a lot of Russians, actually, or Lord Dampnut saying he does not have any business in Russia, despite him signing a letter of intent to begin building a Trump Tower in Moscow.
    All of which constitutes a partisan hypothesis for a conspiracy theory.

    So we're dealing with the fact that Hillary mishandled classified information vs. the theory that Trump criminally colluded with Russia.

    You and other partisans need to understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a factual reality...otherwise, you'll end up looking like fools in the future.

  14. #7814
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    actually YOU are the one who is wrong, she has classified info on a PRIVATE server, her own server full of U.S classified information and she is still not in jail.

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/polit...ion/index.html

    no one was prosecuted, who the fuck gives full immunity and then destroys the evidence like the FBI did? classified info on a PRIVATE server, classified info being printed by a pedo POS m'fer who I am guessing did not have the clearance to even view the shit and not one charge or prosecution? give me a break. anyone else with classified info on would be in jail
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lear-submarine
    his "intent" did not matter, why does Clintons?
    His intent DID matter, did you even read the fucking article?

    Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said.
    FFS dude, pay closer attention to the shit you link.

    He KNEW what he was doing was illegal. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that he tried to destroy the evidence afterward. Both he and you do not understand the email thing properly if you think they're the same situation. Read.

  15. #7815
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    No, we are dealing on one hand with a completely inconsequential investigation into what never was a big deal before Clinton did it and on the other hand an attack on the integrity of US elections by a hostile foreign power, cheered on and actively helped by Lord Dampnut and co. The only remaining question is whether there was something criminal and whether it can be proven in court. Which is what is being investigated currently.

  16. #7816
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Trance View Post
    His intent DID matter, did you even read the fucking article?



    FFS dude, pay closer attention to the shit you link.

    He KNEW what he was doing was illegal. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that he tried to destroy the evidence afterward. Both he and you do not understand the email thing properly if you think they're the same situation. Read.
    nice deflection from the fact Hillarys PRIVATE server has classified info. that weinner printed. and not a single person charged. try sourcing something other than the Clinton News Network or NY slimes.

    come 2020, Hillary will once again "win" the DNC nomination and some of you who are here can vote for her again.............going to be priceless watching her crash & burn again

  17. #7817
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    What deflection? You don't seem to have any concept of the importance of intent in this aspect of criminal law. That's not my problem, that's yours.

    Oh, by the way, you dismissing a CNN article out of hand "because CNN"? THAT'S deflection. (But of course you'll happily make use of a CNN article that you think supports your argument, even when it doesn't.)

  18. #7818
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Meanwhile, Lord Dampnut still denies that there was any Russian meddling, because "Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today".

  19. #7819
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    from your own BS article
    Did Clinton break the rules?
    There are laws intended to keep government records transparent -- but one that requires officials to transfer emails sent to private addresses onto government servers wasn't enacted until 2014, after Clinton departed the State Department.
    Still, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan suggested last month that Clinton violated government policy and made the process of responding to open records requests more difficult.
    "We wouldn't be here today if this employee had followed government policy," he said at a hearing on one of the dozens of lawsuits over Clinton's emails.
    she knew what she was doing. played stupid because well she's a Clinton . having her own server meant she could do as she wished, wiped what she wished any time she wish, all while avoiding the FOIA. and again classified e-mails on weiners ipad, no one charged so yeah the FBI can go fornicate itself.

  20. #7820
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    Also from the same article, on the very next paragraph:

    Was what she did illegal?
    Probably not, said Anne M. Tomkins, the former U.S. attorney who oversaw the prosecution of Gen. David Petraeus over his having showed classified materials to his mistress and biographer.
    Tomkins wrote this week in USA Today that Clinton committed no crime because she didn't "knowingly" share classified materials.
    "Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly," Tomkins wrote.
    "Indeed, the State Department has confirmed that none of the information that has surfaced on Clinton's server thus far was classified at the time it was sent or received," she wrote. "Additionally, the Justice Department indicated that its inquiry is not a criminal one and that Clinton is not the subject of the inquiry."
    -----

    she knew what she was doing. played stupid because well she's a Clinton . having her own server meant she could do as she wished, wiped what she wished any time she wish, all while avoiding the FOIA. and again classified e-mails on weiners ipad, no one charged so yeah the FBI can go fornicate itself.
    Christ, and Vae wants to give us shit for assuming motives.

  21. #7821
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    No, we are dealing on one hand with a completely inconsequential investigation into what never was a big deal before Clinton did it and on the other hand an attack on the integrity of US elections by a hostile foreign power, cheered on and actively helped by Lord Dampnut and co. The only remaining question is whether there was something criminal and whether it can be proven in court. Which is what is being investigated currently.
    It is common for politicians and international business people to make contact with other countries, including Russia.

    contact != collusion

    Once again...

    It is a fact that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information...how you feel about that, is irrelevant.

    It is a conspiracy theory that Donald Trump criminally colluded with Russia...talking about it like it's a fact that only needs to be proven in court, is a distortion of reality.

  22. #7822
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    And is it common to set up a meeting and not go to the FBI after you receive an email that offers help on the behalf of the Russian government?

    Also, not all contacts with Russia are innocent:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/u...ndictment.html

    WASHINGTON — A Russian woman who tried to broker a secret meeting between Donald J. Trump and the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, during the 2016 presidential campaign was charged Monday and accused of working with Americans to carry out a secret Russian effort to influence American politics.

    At the behest of a senior Russian government official, the woman, Mariia Butina, made connections through the National Rifle Association, religious organizations and the National Prayer Breakfast to try to steer the Republican Party toward more pro-Russia policies, court records show. Privately comparing herself to a Soviet Cold War propagandist, she worked to infiltrate American organizations and establish “back channel” lines of communication with American politicians.

    “These lines could be used by the Russian Federation to penetrate the U.S. national decision-making apparatus to advance the agenda of the Russian Federation,” an F.B.I. agent wrote in court documents.

    The charges were filed under seal on Saturday, the day after 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted on a charge of hacking Democratic computers during the 2016 campaign. Ms. Butina, 29, was arrested Sunday and appeared Monday in court. The records were unsealed hours after Mr. Trump stood beside Mr. Putin in Helsinki and said that he saw no reason the Russian leader would try to influence the presidential election.

    [...]

    While Mr. Putin denied any involvement Monday in such activities, court documents showed that Ms. Butina told associates that her covert efforts were approved by Mr. Putin’s administration.

    [...]

    As Mr. Trump’s unusual candidacy gained steam, the Russian government came to favor him over Hillary Clinton, then a Democratic presidential candidate, and worked to support his candidacy, prosecutors and intelligence officials have said.

    The Justice Department said that Ms. Butina worked at the behest of an unidentified high-level Russian government official. He has been previously identified as Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of the Russian central bank who has been linked both to Russia’s security services and organized crime. Mr. Torshin is among the nearly two dozen Russian officials or oligarchs who were sanctioned this year for actions including trying to subvert Western democracies.

    Mr. Torshin is a leading figure in Mr. Putin’s political party, United Russia, and has spoken glowingly of Mr. Trump. He has described Mr. Trump as a “supporter of traditional family values” and “a real man” who “really is for cooperation with Russia.”

    [...]

    In May 2016, Mr. Torshin and Ms. Butina proposed a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin during the annual N.R.A. convention in Louisville, Ky. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, shot down the proposal. But Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, did meet Mr. Torshin and Ms. Butina at an N.R.A.-sponsored dinner, although Mr. Trump’s lawyer has called the encounter brief. Congressional investigators have obtained a photograph of the three at the event, people familiar with the inquiry said.

    [...]

    Though the American operative is not identified, The New York Times has previously reported that Ms. Butina developed a close relationship with Paul Erickson, an N.R.A. member and a longtime conservative activist who was part of the effort to arrange a meeting between Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump. Ms. Butina has publicly described hosting Mr. Erickson at an event in Moscow. Mr. Erickson and his lawyer did not respond to messages seeking comment. He is not identified in court records and has not been charged.

    Ms. Butina also worked with a second unidentified American, prosecutors said.

    After the November 2016 election, Ms. Butina wrote to Mr. Torshin on Twitter, prosecutors said: “I am ready for further orders.”

  23. #7823
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    2020 you will have her again. I’ll vote trump

  24. #7824
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    The mishandling of classified information, by Clinton, is a fact...and the conclusion that it wasn't felony Gross Negligence, is corrupt.



    All of which constitutes a partisan hypothesis for a conspiracy theory.

    So we're dealing with the fact that Hillary mishandled classified information vs. the theory that Trump criminally colluded with Russia.

    You and other partisans need to understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a factual reality...otherwise, you'll end up looking like fools in the future.
    Let's take another look at these statements, shall we?

    Vae is essentially asserting, without a shred of evidence, that the FBI is corrupt.

    Meanwhile, the entirely justified suspicion of Lord Dampnut, especially considering his false statements and actions, is entirely made up and a conspiracy theory.

    Who is it again who doesn't understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a factual reality?

Page 313 of 313 FirstFirst ... 63213263268273278283288293298303308309310311312313

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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