Barr's Book Report On The Mueller Report Is In
basil said:
And by the way, the first person who suggested that it was Russia who stole DNC's emails was Trump himself (remember his "Russia, if you are listening" speech?).
Trump was talking about Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. This is a distinction worth remembering because one argument out there, which nan has repeated in a subforum discussion, is that WikiLeaks had already publicized the pending release of the DNC emails before Stone supposedly tipped the Trump campaign. The problem with that argument is that WikiLeaks’ earlier tweets, and an Assange quote that’s cited along with them, were hinting at a future release of more emails from the Clinton secretary of state hack, not the DNC material. (At the time of those tweets and the Assange interview, WikiLeaks did not yet even possess the DNC emails.)
DaveSchmidt said:
basil said:Trump was talking about Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. This is a distinction worth remembering because one argument out there, which nan has repeated in a subforum discussion, is that WikiLeaks had already publicized the pending release of the DNC emails before Stone supposedly tipped the Trump campaign. The problem with that argument is that WikiLeaks’ earlier tweets, and an Assange quote that’s cited along with them, were hinting at a future release of more emails from the Clinton secretary of state hack, not the DNC material. (At the time of those tweets and the Assange interview, WikiLeaks did not yet even possess the DNC emails.)
And by the way, the first person who suggested that it was Russia who stole DNC's emails was Trump himself (remember his "Russia, if you are listening" speech?).
It's like defending Nixon in the Watergate scandal by arguing that the five burglars did not run a red light when they drove to the hotel. It may be true or it may be false, but it hardly matters, and it raises the question on why you would even argue such a thing.
basil said:
It's like defending Nixon in the Watergate scandal by arguing that the five burglars did not run a red light when they drove to the hotel. It may be true or it may be false, but it hardly matters, and it raises the question on why you would even argue such a thing.
Because in the face of a political movement characterized by dishonesty and distortion, and a broader cultural moment marked by a decline in trust an an increasing openness to paranoia and conspiracy, insisting on facts matters?
PVW said:
Because in the face of a political movement characterized by dishonesty and distortion, and a broader cultural moment marked by a decline in trust an an increasing openness to paranoia and conspiracy, insisting on facts matters?
Fair enough, facts matter. But it also feeds into Trumps narrative that "something was wrong with Hillary's email server and that's where the real criminal acts happened". Meanwhile this guy has publicly lied about his business dealings with Russia, admitted on national TV that he fired Comey "to get rid of this Russia and trump thing", is running the most corrupt US government in modern history, his campaign had dealings with Russia while knowing the Russia government supported him against Hillary and could provide dirt on Hillary, they shared internal polling data with the Russians, etc. And this is all information in the public domain, we don't need any Mueller report or other investigation to uncover this.
In normal times this guy would have been forced to resign and would probably already be in jail. But meanwhile we keep on debating whether or not something was wrong with Hillary's email server? Does that sound like am objective and balanced debate to you?
By what measure is Trump "running the most corrupt US government in modern history"?
basil said:
But meanwhile we keep on debating whether or not something was wrong with Hillary's email server? Does that sound like am objective and balanced debate to you?
I was advising against conflating the Clinton secretary of state and DNC email releases. You brought up the debate over the server.
I can only imagine what you’d blurt out if German guests were coming.
DaveSchmidt said:
basil said:I was advising against conflating the Clinton secretary of state and DNC email releases. You brought up the debate over the server.
But meanwhile we keep on debating whether or not something was wrong with Hillary's email server? Does that sound like am objective and balanced debate to you?
I can only imagine what you’d blurt out if German guests were coming.
I think I got away with it
terp said:
By what measure is Trump "running the most corrupt US government in modern history"?
Oh, that's a hard question. How to pick one?
Maybe it is the number of times he (or his administration) lies to the american public.
Or maybe it is the number of administration officials that resigned because of ethics conflicts.
Or maybe it is the fact that he has not divested from his business interests, and actually spends tax payer money on business that he profits from. Not to mention that business and foreign entities spend money there.
Gee, this is hard.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:...This reminds me of discussions about vaccinations. People disagree on issues regarding the responsibility of parents, or whether and how much the government should require vaccinations, or religious/cultural objections to putting those substances into the body. There can be sincere and intelligent debate on these issues.
"Russian hacking of the DNC" remains an allegation.
And sometimes there's the person insisting that the vaccine causes autism. That person adds nothing to the conversation.
The IC "assessment" that Russia hacked the DNC provides no evidence of a hack and includes a disclaimer that "assessments" are not proof and they can be wrong.
If you believe that Russian hacking is a fact, in the words of the NYT, you are "trusting" the IC and the mainstream media whose initial reporting was "alleged hack" that morphed into "hack," a sleight of hand that has been going on for two years. Both of these institutions -- the IC and the media -- have proven, at the expense of millions of deaths and trillions of wasted dollars, that they should not be trusted.
I'll re-post the NY Times initial report on the IC "assessment":
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russian-hacking-election-intelligence.htmlWhat is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission . . .
Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to “trust us.” There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), whose members include former technical directors of the NSA, has asserted that if a hack took place, the NSA has the technical means to prove it without risk to sources and methods. The claim that Russia hacked the DNC remains an allegation, in the words of the NYT, amounting to "trust us".
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/
ridski said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Poulsen
Poulsen has done some good reporting, but on Russiagate he regurgitates the official story.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:No, the author cites several examples, and presumes some familiarity with what Mueller recounted instead of re-listing everything. Did you read it, or just read someone's attempt to criticize it?
It's not "an article" it's an opinion piece. And to support his sweeping generalization, the author cites one example. ...Click to Read Morenohero said:
jamie said:Very good article, making a point that people need to appreciate.
Interesting take on the Mueller Report:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
...
What are the other examples?
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:From your linked article:
I gave you the link. See response to drummerboy above.
"Neither the Joint Staff nor the DNC were specifically targeted. They were victims purely by chance; part of a massive spear phishing attack against an unidentified west coast university that had more in common with ransomware and crimeware attacks (in the words of F-Secure) than an espionage operation run by a foreign intelligence service."
This is a significant change in position for you. Are you officially dropping the claim that the DNC emails were leaked rather than hacked?
(If so then we can discuss this article. If not, then there's not really a point discussing an article whose premise you disagree with, though it'd then be confusing why you cited it in the first place.)
You are aware that I cited the article to refute your claim that a digital-image is just as good as access to the server.
Carr doesn't suggest that the DNC emails were leaked, but he does suggest that they weren't hacked by the Russian government which is fatal to Russiagate. Jeffrey commented favorably in the past on the VIPS position cited above, I'm not sure exactly where he stands today.
I think your statement "there's really not a point discussing an article whose premise you disagree with" is rather restrictive. But did you really say it to avoid admitting that you were wrong about servers having no forensic value?
PVW said:
basil said:Paul's position has been that there was no Russian hacking, hence the Mueller investigation was a hoax. One of his arguments has been that because the FBI had no access to the servers, they couldn't possibly conclude that the DNC had been hacked by the Russians, and so must be lying. He's also been arguing that the DNC was not hacked, but was that an insider leaked materials, which I suppose he believes physical access to the servers would somehow prove? (it's not clear to me exactly why he thinks access to the servers matters).
Maybe I am missing something, but what does the DNC server attack have to do with the Mueller report?
His most recent post seems to have rather dramatically shifted his position in that he appears to be accepting there was a hack after all, though not by the Russians.
The Mueller investigation was to find whether there was coordination (collusion) between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. I started a thread on this in which we had several exchanges. The investigation was a hoax because it's been obvious for two-plus years that the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion are baseless.
On the issue of Russian interference, the official story -- endorsed by Mueller -- that Russia made a "sweeping" effort to undermine US democracy is contradicted by the ridiculously trivial claims of Russian interference (DNC emails, Facebook ads) even if you accept the allegations (and they are all allegations) that these activities were ordered by Putin.
PVW said:
basil said:That's basically my question to Paul. He finds it relevant and I don't understand why.
First of all, nobody has access to physical servers nowadays anymore. Everything is in the Cloud, which means everything is virtual. So why is that even relevant here?
Jeffrey Carr gave one example why servers are relevant to forensic investigations.
paulsurovell said:
You are aware that I cited the article to refute your claim that a digital-image is just as good as access to the server.
Carr doesn't suggest that the DNC emails were leaked, but he does suggest that they weren't hacked by the Russian government which is fatal to Russiagate. Jeffrey commented favorably in the past on the VIPS position cited above, I'm not sure exactly where he stands today.
I think your statement "there's really not a point discussing an article whose premise you disagree with" is rather restrictive. But did you really say it to avoid admitting that you were wrong about servers having no forensic value?
In fact it was not clear to me why you posted the article, so I'm glad you clarified and explained that it was specifically as an example where access to the physical server is important.
So, let's stipulate for the purposes of argument that you and I are both wrong -- that the DNC emails were hacked, not leaked, and that it was not the Russian government behind this. What information would access to the physical servers provide that the image did not? Carr's article doesn't give any reason why it would be important, so maybe you could fill the in blanks here?
basil said:
terp said:Oh, that's a hard question. How to pick one?
By what measure is Trump "running the most corrupt US government in modern history"?
Maybe it is the number of times he (or his administration) lies to the american public.
Or maybe it is the number of administration officials that resigned because of ethics conflicts.
Or maybe it is the fact that he has not divested from his business interests, and actually spends tax payer money on business that he profits from. Not to mention that business and foreign entities spend money there.
Gee, this is hard.
It's funny, but your "outrage" against Trump doesn't include a single action by his administration.
Should we assume that you're OK with his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the INF Treaty, the Iran Nuclear Deal, his giving lethal weapons to Ukraine, his bombing of Syria, his attempt to overthrow the government of Venezuela, his gutting of environmental legislation, and the greatest redistribution of income to the rich in a generation?
Your "outrage" against Trump seems to be limited to character issues and a fictitious relationship with Russia. Sounds more like faux outrage.
paulsurovell said:
Jeffrey Carr gave one example why servers are relevant to forensic investigations.
Physical servers are irrelevant to gathering data. It's all done here.
paulsurovell said:
Poulsen has done some good reporting, but on Russiagate he regurgitates the official story.
what a ridiculous comment. The one link to a Paulsen story here is a direct refutation of the "official story". It's the whole point of the piece. That the official story has been presented so ineptly, that people like you think there's no evidence.
basil said:
Oh, that's a hard question. How to pick one?
Maybe it is the number of times he (or his administration) lies to the american public.
Or maybe it is the number of administration officials that resigned because of ethics conflicts.
Or maybe it is the fact that he has not divested from his business interests, and actually spends tax payer money on business that he profits from. Not to mention that business and foreign entities spend money there.
Gee, this is hard.
terp
How about forcing security officials to give top secret clearances to his family?
The list is so long that you're not worth the effort. This is the question some Fox news junkie would ask.
paulsurovell said:
Poulsen has done some good reporting, but on Russiagate he regurgitates the official story.
Oh, how I wish I could put you two in a room together and watch how quickly your faith in VIPS crumbles.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:what a ridiculous comment. The one link to a Paulsen story here is a direct refutation of the "official story". It's the whole point of the piece. That the official story has been presented so ineptly, that people like you think there's no evidence.
Poulsen has done some good reporting, but on Russiagate he regurgitates the official story.
I read the link and a few other pieces.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:Oh, how I wish I could put you two in a room together and watch how quickly your faith in VIPS crumbles.
Poulsen has done some good reporting, but on Russiagate he regurgitates the official story.
Better still, ask him to debate Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe; and then watch Kevin flee.
paulsurovell said:
Better still, ask him to debate Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe; and then watch Kevin flee.
That would be interesting. They've been at the same events before, so it's possible they may have met before. As far as whether he would run from them, he seems pretty confident that he's right about this and Binney is wrong.
I have nothing but respect for Binney's past efforts as a government whistleblower. These days, though, he's the Typhoid Mary of misinformation. In fact, right now he's the most prominent spreader of the "32 pages" nonsense.
— Kevin Poulsen (@kpoulsen) April" class="redactor-linkify-object">https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1121256504668016640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 25, 2019
By the way, with all the trolling here on MOL, let's not forget that Russia did hack our election. I think we should see that as an act of war. And although they definitely have won the first battle in that war, we need to fight back and make them pay for it.
basil said:
By the way, with all the trolling here on MOL, let's not forget that Russia did hack our election. I think we should see that as an act of war. And although they definitely have won the first battle in that war, we need to fight back and make them pay for it.
Do you realize how many nations across the globe would have the right to attack us based on your standard?
paulsurovell said:
It's funny, but your "outrage" against Trump doesn't include a single action by his administration.
Should we assume that you're OK with his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the INF Treaty, the Iran Nuclear Deal, his giving lethal weapons to Ukraine, his bombing of Syria, his attempt to overthrow the government of Venezuela, his gutting of environmental legislation, and the greatest redistribution of income to the rich in a generation?
Your "outrage" against Trump seems to be limited to character issues and a fictitious relationship with Russia. Sounds more like faux outrage.
I make not claims that Trump's heart is pure as the driven snow. He is corrupt. His administration is corrupt. People realize that this is a presidential administration of the United States of America. Yes? By definition, it's corrupt. How do these "civil servants" consistently walk away with so much $$?
basil said:
By the way, with all the trolling here on MOL, let's not forget that Russia did hack our election. I think we should see that as an act of war. And although they definitely have won the first battle in that war, we need to fight back and make them pay for it.
I'm guessing you'll be fine if Iran attacks us. Is that right? This is like a trillion times worse than anything Russia has ever done to us.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:That would be interesting. They've been at the same events before, so it's possible they may have met before. As far as whether he would run from them, he seems pretty confident that he's right about this and Binney is wrong.
Better still, ask him to debate Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe; and then watch Kevin flee.
I have nothing but respect for Binney's past efforts as a government whistleblower. These days, though, he's the Typhoid Mary of misinformation. In fact, right now he's the most prominent spreader of the "32 pages" nonsense.
— Kevin Poulsen (@kpoulsen) April" class="redactor-linkify-object">https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1121256504668016640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 25, 2019
Have you found any substantive rebuttals to Binney by Poulsen?
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
May 6, 2024 at 10:11am
-
Experienced Summer Nanny Available: Thursdays & Fridays ;)
May 6, 2024 at 8:56am
-
Brazilian cleaning 973 776 2481
May 5, 2024 at 7:35pm
-
May 5, 2024 at 11:14am
-
May 4, 2024 at 1:08pm
Help Wanted
-
May 3, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
Cat Lovers - become part of our lovely Silver Hound Cat Sitter team
May 3, 2024 at 2:12pm
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
Lessons/Instruction
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Well, that's a way of looking at things you and I disagree on.