DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[B-Man]

Trump on Russia indictment: Why didn’t Obama do something

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396999-trump-on-russian-indictments-why-didnt-obama-do-something

 

Wow, imagine a POTUS blaming something on the previous administration.........it's outrageous...........it's te.............Oh wait;

 

Nevermind.

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

Edited July 14, 2018 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Trump on Russia indictment: Why didn’t Obama do something

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396999-trump-on-russian-indictments-why-didnt-obama-do-something

 

Wow, imagine a POTUS blaming something on the previous administration.........it's outrageous...........it's te.............Oh wait;

 

Nevermind.

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

At least you guys are now admitting it was the Russians. You can have fun and blame the victim now for awhile, but the real question won't be why didn't Obama do more, but why did Trump do anything at all with the Russians? Like Bannon said, "Treasonous" 

[B-Man]

Another day, another Gator misinterpretation of a post..................? ?

 

 

 

 

STRZOK MOUNTS THE OTTER DEFENSE

 

 

Republicans: Lisa Page a ‘far more credible’ witness than Peter Strzok

 

 

 Friday’s announcement by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also offered a key piece of the puzzle that explains where Mueller ultimately is going.

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, gatorbait said:

 

It’s pretty descriptive and lays out a ton of info about who did what. You believe it’s all BS right?

 

No, it's not all BS. Some of it is fine/factual. But there are issues like:

 

The central claim of "hacking" is, if only because phishing isn't hacking.

The server has never been examined by anyone, including the FBI.

The claim Guciffer 2.0 was not an agent of the GRU but ACTUALLY GRU is preposterous and easy to disprove. 

 

And lastly there's the Assange of it all. Why hasn't the FBI - now or under Comey - interviewed the ONE person who would know first hand where the information came from? They haven't only just not interviewed him, they've gone out of their way to pretend he doesn't exist. 

 

Remember the sequence in late 2016. Assange offered to talk with Comey. It was being arranged by Congress - then Comey ignored it (because clinton didn't like Julian and wanted to drone his embassy - her words) which is WHY Assange dropped Vault 7. There was a chance for the CIA and FBI to talk to Assange and get vault 7 back - they refused. So Assange released vault 7 to the wild. 

 

What was vault 7? The entire CIA cyber warfare kit, which included programs like Umbridge and Marbles which showed how the CIA has the capabilities to spoof anyone's digital fingerprints onto cyber attacks to make it look like it was Russia or China or North Korea doing the dirty deeds. 

 

So we know the tools exist for the IC to spoof an attack from anywhere, we know the FBI never examined the physical servers themselves, and instead took the word of partisan CrowdStrike who had skin in the game and reason to lie (and who invented Guciffer 2.0), and we know the FBI has refused to interview the one witness to the crime. 

 

But trust RR and Mueller when they say it was hacked, their word is all we need?

 

Come now. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No, it's not all BS. Some of it is fine/factual. But there are issues like:

 

The central claim of "hacking" is, if only because phishing isn't hacking.

The server has never been examined by anyone, including the FBI.

The claim Guciffer 2.0 was not an agent of the GRU but ACTUALLY GRU is preposterous and easy to disprove. 

 

And lastly there's the Assange of it all. Why hasn't the FBI - now or under Comey - interviewed the ONE person who would know first hand where the information came from? They haven't only just not interviewed him, they've gone out of their way to pretend he doesn't exist. 

 

Remember the sequence in late 2016. Assange offered to talk with Comey. It was being arranged by Congress - then Comey ignored it (because clinton didn't like Julian and wanted to drone his embassy - her words) which is WHY Assange dropped Vault 7. There was a chance for the CIA and FBI to talk to Assange and get vault 7 back - they refused. So Assange released vault 7 to the wild. 

 

What was vault 7? The entire CIA cyber warfare kit, which included programs like Umbridge and Marbles which showed how the CIA has the capabilities to spoof anyone's digital fingerprints onto cyber attacks to make it look like it was Russia or China or North Korea doing the dirty deeds. 

 

So we know the tools exist for the IC to spoof an attack from anywhere, we know the FBI never examined the physical servers themselves, and instead took the word of partisan CrowdStrike who had skin in the game and reason to lie (and who invented Guciffer 2.0), and we know the FBI has refused to interview the one witness to the crime. 

 

But trust RR and Mueller when they say it was hacked, their word is all we need?

 

Come now. 

 

 

And all the officials that work for them and in the other agencies. They have a lot more credibility than Trump, that's for sure 

[Deranged Rhino]

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Trump on Russia indictment: Why didn’t Obama do something

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396999-trump-on-russian-indictments-why-didnt-obama-do-something

 

Wow, imagine a POTUS blaming something on the previous administration.........it's outrageous...........it's te.............Oh wait;

 

Nevermind.

 

 

 

.

 

 

.

Another thing on this, will Trump own up for this: 

Quote

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

As it turns out, that same day, the Russians — whether they had tuned in or not — made their first effort to break into the servers used by Mrs. Clinton’s personal office, according to a sweeping 29-page indictment unsealed Friday by the special counsel’s office that charged 12 Russians with election hacking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

 

 

I know a lot of people wish that Trump would shut up, but that's not Obama's fault 

[Deranged Rhino]

*********************

Some smattering of morning intel on CrowdStrike:

 

According to the DNC suit, the Russians first gained access to the DNC in July of 2015. Funny that, according to numerous reports (including this one:  https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article131308584.html ) CrowdStrike started in July of 2015 on a one year, 150k deal with the FBI (in the CID).

 

https://themarketswork.com/2018/05/18/the-fbis-outside-contractors-dnc-servers-crowdstrike/

 

Amazing coincidence, I'm sure.

 

"And I find the timing of actions by the DNC extremely coincidental in light of Admiral Rogers’ discoveries in late March 2016."

[Nanker]

 

 

[/dev/null]

Did the Russians hack Hiliary's campaign jet to prevent her from landing in Wisconsin?

[Deranged Rhino]

Here's a fun one to ask yourself: 

 

If, per Mueller's indictment, the Russians only tried to hack Hillary's personal email system for the first time on July 27, 2016, why did "Russian cut out" Mifsud say to George Papadapoulos on April 26, 2016 that Russia already had thousands of her emails? 

 

Both these statements have been made in Mueller's indictments - yet both can't be true.

 

One more: 

 

Before June 2016 Russian intelligence already had hacked both the DNC and DCC according to the most recent indictment. Whey then didn't the Russians offer any of this intelligence to Don Jr at the Trump Tower meeting in June? 

 

These are OBVIOUS contradictions in Mueller's indictments. 

 

(yet pay no mind) 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Two more nails in the "Steele Dossier's" credibility thanks to the indictment: 

 

* Aleksej Gubarev supposedly helped hack the DNC - not indicted. 

 

* Michael Cohen supposedly went to Europe to "pay off" hackers - Russian intelligence officers need paying off?

 

The "verified" dossier sure does keep turning out to be bunk, over and over again. 

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Two more nails in the "Steele Dossier's" credibility thanks to the indictment: 

 

* Aleksej Gubarev supposedly helped hack the DNC - not indicted. 

 

* Michael Cohen supposedly went to Europe to "pay off" hackers - Russian intelligence officers need paying off?

 

The "verified" dossier sure does keep turning out to be bunk, over and over again. 

Why have they skirted around VIPS assertion that the DNC server could not be hacked in the time allotted? That only a break in or inside job could have downloaded the amount of information in that amount of time? This nestles in nicely with the blackout of news and flimsy results of the Seth Rich murder. Who are they protecting?

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[row_33]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Why have they skirted around VIPS assertion that the DNC server could not be hacked in the time allotted? That only a break in or inside job could have downloaded the amount of information in that amount of time? This nestles in nicely with the blackout of news and flimsy results of the Seth Rich murder. Who are they protecting?

 

Its so pathetic and sad, pointing the finger at a conspiracy makes it funny though

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

(Vault 7)

Umbrage: https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/56983/intelligence/wikileaks-vault7-cia-umbrage-team.html

[Thirdborn]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Here's a fun one to ask yourself: 

 

If, per Mueller's indictment, the Russians only tried to hack Hillary's personal email system for the first time on July 27, 2016, why did "Russian cut out" Mifsud say to George Papadapoulos on April 26, 2016 that Russia already had thousands of her emails? 

 

Both these statements have been made in Mueller's indictments - yet both can't be true.

 

One more: 

 

Before June 2016 Russian intelligence already had hacked both the DNC and DCC according to the most recent indictment. Whey then didn't the Russians offer any of this intelligence to Don Jr at the Trump Tower meeting in June? 

 

These are OBVIOUS contradictions in Mueller's indictments. 

 

(yet pay no mind) 

 

OMG that photo is GOLD

[B-Man]

Decoding the great Ruskie bust by Don Sucher

Original Article   What are we to make of the headline-busting "bust" of twelve Russians for hacking Dem Party computers, releasing the supposedly confidential info there, and thus messing around with an American election or three?   Notice my question: "What are we to make of" the above.  To me, that is the real question – one that in and of itself is its own answer.   This act by the Department of Justice has no meaning in a legal sense.  The Russians ain't done nothing (yes, double negative – perfect for here) that they (and the U.S. government) have not been doing since at least 1918.  In this case, it had absolutely no effect on any outcomes apart from raising the decibel level. That is exactly what this supposed "bust" is to do as well.   Think of how much there is right now that the "Department of Justice" (sorry, but those scare quotes are needed) needs to drown out.  The Mueller idiocy.  The success of the Trump administration's policies.  The slow reveal of the DoJ's own malfeasance in trying to upset the last election.   How better to do this than by a phony "bust" of some ugly Ruskies?   Do they really expect the Russian government to extradite these people for trial here?  (Would they bust 'em if that were even a possibility?  With the Russians thus able via American criminal law practices to demand access to all that information the DoJ won't even allow congressional committees to see?  Really?)   And what about the timing?  This is occurring just as 1) a key FBI official is telling Congress between smirks that "I will not answer your questions – the FBI lawyers tell me I cannot" and 2) President Trump is about to meet with Russian president Putin – and pull off who knows what State Department mortifying surprise.   No, the Russians here are not the target.  We are.  You, me, and our elected president.  Our growing self-confidence and demand for taking control of what is ours – control that threatens everything the so-called "DoJ" and the rest of State looks upon as its own. Will this gambit work?  I think not.   Yes, N.Y. Times readers will nod their heads in agreement, just as they are inclined and have been trained to do.  Those who live in the social media-tabloid world (increasingly the same thing) will ignore it as far less interesting than, say, four woman beating up a waitress at an Applebee's.   The bulk of thinking Americans will see it as just what it is – another attempt at gaming us through the old and now largely ignored media circus.   No, they – those perpetrating this farce – won't go away.  But their hold is day by day, and act by act, weakening. This entire gambit is equally an example of that – and an accelerator of their demise.

[row_33]

How many months into this no-brainer fake charge collusion with Russia and not a speck of findings? Which was obvious all along.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

19 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

H

That photo says it all about the great value in all of your research on this stuff.  Don't get me wrong, the political stuff has been solid, but your osmosis like recognition of the reality known as sitcom math is delicious.