Helsinki Summit

[LB3]

Stephen Miller

 

@redsteeze

 

That's how you know this is hyperbole and hysterics. Because they will all tell you this is Peral Harbor and 9/11 but then ask them how to respond and they say "sanctions" We didn't respond to Pearl Harbor with sanctions. So either advocate bombing the **** out of Moscow or STFU

10:35 AM · Jul 17, 2018

[TPS]

39 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Are you talking about Spitzer or Schneiderman?

 

Also, I believe Ritter's transgressions were more than online.  I believe he showed up for a meet and met the FBI instead of his intended companion.  That is not online.

Schneiderman was never governor. Again, I'm not defending his transgressions; however, had he not been one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war, he would've simply been some unknown perv who likes to masturbates in front of young girls....   

His transgressions certainly do take the focus off of those more important things he "exposes...."

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Stephen Miller

 

@redsteeze

 

That's how you know this is hyperbole and hysterics. Because they will all tell you this is Peral Harbor and 9/11 but then ask them how to respond and they say "sanctions" We didn't respond to Pearl Harbor with sanctions. So either advocate bombing the **** out of Moscow or STFU

10:35 AM · Jul 17, 2018

 

not even within 10,000,000,000 miles of Pearl Harbor or 9/11

 

how do people get all worked up about something as petty as this?

 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, TPS said:

Schneiderman was never governor. Again, I'm not defending his transgressions; however, had he not been one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war, he would've simply been some unknown perv who likes to masturbates in front of young girls....   

His transgressions certainly do take the focus off of those more important things he "exposes...."

 

I'm going to go on record saying that I'm not comfortable with the idea of euphemizing "pedophilia" into "transgressions".

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

how do you have time to get worried about all this?

 

By not taking the time to read all of your posts?

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

So your opinion of Trump's meeting with Putin being treasonous isn't yours, it's John Brennan's.

 

Then why the hell should anyone discuss it with you?  We should be discussing it with Brennan and the rest of MSNBC.

 

You're not worth talking to.  You don't even have your own outrage, you have to borrow the outrage of others.  

 

What makes Trump's actions treason?  Use specifics.  Start with defining "treason."

 

Oh it's my own outrage, and that of most loyal Americans. Brennan just happened to express my feelings to a T.  

 

As for the definition of treason, allow me to refer to 18 U.S. Code § 2381:

 

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)"

 

Carry on, PPP'ers. Putin approves.

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Oh it's my own outrage, and that of most loyal Americans. Brennan just happened to express my feelings to a T.  

 

 

But on what basis do you feel that way?  What "aid and comfort" has been given to the Russians that outrages you?  What makes them our enemy?

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Oh it's my own outrage, and that of most loyal Americans. Brennan just happened to express my feelings to a T.  

 

As for the definition of treason, allow me to refer to 18 U.S. Code § 2381:

 

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)"

 

Carry on, PPP'ers. Putin approves.

When did we declare war on Russia? Yourshit is pretty weakshit and maybe you should reconsider putting it on display here?

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

What's scary is that they outsource their outrage, and don't apply any thinking.

 

This will never be more evident than when they stop raging about Putin 24/7 and return to raging about Kavanaugh 24/7.

 

Mark it.

[Deranged Rhino]

Promo - were you for or against the CIA torture program?

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Oh it's my own outrage, and that of most loyal Americans. Brennan just happened to express my feelings to a T.  

 

As for the definition of treason, allow me to refer to 18 U.S. Code § 2381:

 

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)"

 

Carry on, PPP'ers. Putin approves.

 

This actually explains it quite nicely.  And since it's written by a liberal law professor at a liberal school for a liberal paper, it nicely fits your partisanship.

 

But I suspect this revisionist dipshittery is more up your alley, conforming as it does to your "feelz."

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Promo - were you for or against the CIA torture program?

 

I believe his posts are a part of it.

[row_33]

hello to the person who has appointed himself the dictator of the views of most loyal Americans...

 

Promo, you can suck it.

 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

This will never be more evident than when they stop raging about Putin 24/7 and return to raging about Kavanaugh 24/7.

 

Mark it.

 

My expectation is that their rage about Kavanaugh going forward will actually be about Putin: "We need a Justice who's not nominated by a President treasonously beholden to Putin!"

[row_33]

what's tomorrow's tempest in a pisspot storm, totally forgetting what was called the end of the world today

 

these people should get a Marshall stack and stand on a street corner in Buffalo, the insanity and hilarity they are providing

 

?

[TPS]

13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm going to go on record saying that I'm not comfortable with the idea of euphemizing "pedophilia" into "transgressions".

Point taken.

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Stephen Miller

 

@redsteeze

 

That's how you know this is hyperbole and hysterics. Because they will all tell you this is Peral Harbor and 9/11 but then ask them how to respond and they say "sanctions" We didn't respond to Pearl Harbor with sanctions. So either advocate bombing the **** out of Moscow or STFU

10:35 AM · Jul 17, 2018

 

Personally, I thought the "Kristallnacht" analogy was the real high point.  An act not treasonous, having nothing to do with the US or Russia, that was addressed with rather mild sanctions.  It only served as a convenient and slightly original Nazi reference.  

 

I mean, if you're going to push the collusion/treason/Nazi angle, at least go Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

My expectation is that their rage about Kavanaugh going forward will actually be about Putin: "We need a Justice who's not nominated by a President treasonously beholden to Putin!"

 

I think this is prescient.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Hey Promo...what about the guys in the IC who are now your heroes who lied about WMD in Iraq?

 

Should we believe them now, but not have believed them then?

 

This is an easy one, Promo.

 

[DC Tom]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I think this is prescient.

 

The Democrats are absurd, but predictable.  

 

God, I miss the Democratic Party of even 20 years ago.  At least they had some legislative sense.  Ever since Pelosi became Speaker, they've gone completely mental.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I think this is prescient.

 

No doubt. Still don't think these people are a danger?

 

 

[Bray Wyatt]

this is the problem with the left, they take everything to the extreme. Do I think it was dumb of Trump to not take the easy softball question and say I believe my intelligence guys? Yes. Even if he doesnt believe it, thats the canned response and everyone knows it, even Putin. I do not think its a good look from our leader.

 

However, this is not Pearl Harber, treason or whatever the hell else they are exaggerating.

 

Another note, at least it seems to me that the republicans seem consistent in their outrage. They didnt like it when Obama was nice to Russia, and they dont like Trump doing it now.  The left on the other hand, had no problem with Obama doing it and now are outraged = hypocrites.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Bray Wyatt

[Max Fischer]

The President of the United States said his administration, congress and the intelligence community are wrong about Russian election interference and Putin is telling the truth.  

 

Yet, many of you see nothing wrong with that. Traitor-on guys!

 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

No doubt. Still don't think these people are a danger?

 

 

I think you'd have a good deal of trouble finding a quote of me saying that they aren't engaging in dangerous behavior.

 

In fact, quite the opposite, I've stated many times that we're approaching a point where Civil War may become an inevitability.

 

My contention has always been that freedom is inherently dangerous because it permits people to do and say things we don't like; however for all it's warts it's the only system that protects you when you take action to do or say something others don't like.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I think you'd have a good deal of trouble finding a quote of me saying that they aren't engaging in dangerous behavior.

 

In fact, quite the opposite, I've stated many times that we're approaching a point where Civil War may become an inevitability.

 

My contention has always been that freedom is inherently dangerous because it permits people to do and say things we don't like; however for all it's warts it's the only system that protects you when you take action to do or say something others don't like.

 

Gotcha.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

6 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

There are 4-5 semi-deranged fascists on this board who have pretty much chased away all remaining objective, rational posters.  They talk to themselves all day and take their own collective agreement as some kind of sign that their "side" is winning the cultural war.  If you confront them with the lunacy of the current POTUS regime, their response is one of the following (i) snark; (ii) "But Obama/Hillary," or (iii) the media/intelligence community/any evidence contrary to their opinion is part of some deep state conspiracy of lies.

 

They are lunatics engaged in a "Fox 'N' Friends" circle jerk on this forum.  If you scroll up in the thread you'll see that they've started to attract the far-right (or far-left) anti-Semitic Lyndon Larouche crowd who think 9/11 was an inside job/manufactured by the Mossad.  This is not a surprise.  Most intelligent, rational posters stay away from this corner of the Wall - what I refer to as TSW's Taint.

 

This is a hilarious spin considering you've run away from every attempt to have a meaningful, evidence based, conversation. Speaking of, did you ever read the FISC opinion you said you'd read, because you're an attorney who "knows how **** works"? Or nah? 

 

I'm guessing nah since you've spent the last three months ducking the direct question. 

 

Cowardly trolling is all Tuesday wants to offer - while trying to claim the high ground. You can't make this up.  

14 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

The President of the United States said his administration, congress and the intelligence community are wrong about Russian election interference and Putin is telling the truth.  

 

Yet, many of you see nothing wrong with that. Traitor-on guys!

 

 

 

 

Link to the exact quote? 

 

Or maybe you're adding words and context that didn't exist - because dishonesty is your thing. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

Hey Promo...what about the guys in the IC who are now your heroes who lied about WMD in Iraq?

 

Should we believe them now, but not have believed them then?

 

This is an easy one, Promo.

 

 

Really?  That's...stupid.

 

What about the heroism of Russia in 2003 opposing the invasion of Iraq, and in 2007 when they invaded Georgia but were evil and Bush didn't do anything but levy sanctions...then in 2008, US-Russia relations were at a crisis because of Bush's antagonistic policies, leading to a "reset" button and the lifting of Bush's Georgia sanctions.  Then the dismissal of Romney's 2012 observation that Russia was are greatest geopolitical foe, and Obama having "more flexibility after the elections" to treat with Putin.  Then 2013, the "red line" fiasco leads to the virtual abandonment of Middle Eastern policy to Russian interests.  Only after that, with the annexation of the Crimea and invasion of Eastern Ukraine does Russia suddenly become a "foe" again, leading to even stronger sanctions.  

And now, with Trump arming Ukraine, implementing even greater sanctions, expelling Russian diplomats, and bombing Russians in Syria...he's "weak" dealing with our "enemy."

 

That's a much better string of examples of Democratic hypocrisy.  And it's not even remotely a complete set of examples.  Fifteen years of blatant foreign policy inconsistency for no other reason than to chase a domestic principle of "Everything a Republican ever does is wrong."  I have no doubt that, if Trump broke off relations with Russia, the Democrats would rail against it for no reason other than to be anti-Trump. 

 

So you'll pardon me if I stopped taking them seriously.  

[row_33]

The prior admin, congress, and the intell community has zero point zero credibility on this issue.

 

NOTHING WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!!

 

Again I ask how you can determine a server was hacked until you have seized possession and gone through it....

 

 

the next President is going to be held 100% responsible for any hacker on US soil that accomplishes a break just for kicks???

 

Think about it....

 

[Deranged Rhino]

You don't get it, Row. Promo TRUSTS Brennan. He saw him on TV speaking so it must have been the truth coming from his lips. He's a man who's always put country above party, he's never stained his service record, he's never broken the American peoples' trust. He's never ran major spying operation on congress and the press while they were investigating him and CIA torture just to limit the blowback. He's never made undisclosed trips to Russia on burner passports during the election (February 2016, again in June). He ran the investigation into Russian meddling by the book - the book from 1999 after he tore up the protocol book written after the WMD debacle in 2002-2003. He's never exuded anything but steady, level headiness in his tweets and personal interactions.  

 

Promo TRUSTS Brennan. A true patriot who NEVER had an American journalist murdered on the streets of Los Angeles because he was digging into Brennan's Moscow ties. 

 

No wonder he's so lost.

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

The prior admin, congress, and the intell community has zero point zero credibility on this issue.

 

NOTHING WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!!

 

Again I ask how you can determine a server was hacked until you have seized possession and gone through it....

 

 

the next President is going to be held 100% responsible for any hacker on US soil that accomplishes a break just for kicks???

 

Think about it....

 

 

Because an image of the server was provided to the FBI.  Don't be an idiot!

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Because an image of the server was provided to the FBI.  Don't be an idiot!

 

That's not the same, 26, as direct evidence. Images can be corrupted, altered, and spoofed as Vault 7 proved. 

 

There's no excuse for the FBI not directly examining the server themselves. None. 

(especially when the work they're being asked to trust was done by CrowdStrike - a contractor who was/should have been one of the targets of the investigations, not part of it)

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Because an image of the server was provided to the FBI.  Don't be an idiot!

 

that's not what my IT gurus are saying, they are saying this is total 100% BS.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's not the same, 26, as direct evidence. Images can be corrupted, altered, and spoofed as Vault 7 proved. 

 

There's no excuse for the FBI not directly examining the server themselves. None. 

 

You can also alter and corrupt the actual server itself.  I often make images of my servers and PCs to preserve the digital integrity of the files in case of OS or DB corruption.  At any rate, one does not need physical possession of the original for a 100% accurate forensic examination. 

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

that's not what my IT gurus are saying, they are saying this is total 100% BS.

 

 

Wrong!

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You can also alter and corrupt the actual server itself.  I often make images of my servers and PCs to preserve the digital integrity of the files in case of OS or DB corruption.  At any rate, one does not need physical possession of the original for a 100% accurate forensic examination. 

 

You don't need one if you're dealing with level actors who you trust to give you the unvarnished images. CrowdStrike, by nature of their relationship to the DCCC/DNC and the FBI/Clinton were not impartial actors.

 

Look at it this way: 

 

We both agree this is the most politically divisive scandal in the history of this country. The stakes are enormous, and the disinformation and propaganda on both sides of the political aisle on this one are off the charts. Right? 

 

So wouldn't one expect the FBI would go out of their way to look at every piece of evidence directly - if only to thwart any arguments or disinformation attempts? 

 

Yet, Comey didn't, instead he trusted the word a contractor with deep financial ties to the victims themselves. Any investigator worth a damn would know that gives them motive to possibly lie and would want to double check their work. Again, if only to stop this exact attack from happening. 

 

Knowing what we know about the origin of this investigation, the 702 abuse inside FBI-CID (of which CrowdStrike was a part of), and what we know of the political motivations of those working the case, NOT examining the server directly opens up a lot of reasonable doubt. Especially when that is combined with the evidence that all of these investigative bodies have the cyber tools to fake exactly those sorts of server images. 

 

We are a country that believes in innocent til proven guilty, are we not? And you're asking people to dismiss wildly sloppy investigating (from day one) and just take Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, and Clapper at their word when each one to a man has a long (and now criminal for some) record of being dishonest brokers with the American public. 

 

Isn't it a weak argument, and poor work, for the FBI to be now forced into a position where the entirety of their hacking investigation was done second and third hand? 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You can also alter and corrupt the actual server itself.  I often make images of my servers and PCs to preserve the digital integrity of the files in case of OS or DB corruption.  At any rate, one does not need physical possession of the original for a 100% accurate forensic examination. 

 

Wrong!

 

IT gurus aside, unless it's a cloud VM, a "server image" isn't evidentiary itself, as it can be altered or manipulated.

 

Even if they work with images for forensic analysis, they need possession of the physical server as evidence.  To not have it is a very big lapse in the investigation.

[Joe Miner]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

IT gurus aside, unless it's a cloud VM, a "server image" isn't evidentiary itself, as it can be altered or manipulated.

 

Even if they work with images for forensic analysis, they need possession of the physical server as evidence.  To not have it is a very big lapse in the investigation.

 

I'll wait until Ben Sasse weighs in on this.

 

Assuming he agrees with what I want to think.

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

IT gurus aside, unless it's a cloud VM, a "server image" isn't evidentiary itself, as it can be altered or manipulated.

 

Even if they work with images for forensic analysis, they need possession of the physical server as evidence.  To not have it is a very big lapse in the investigation.

 

Your point makes no sense as the contents of a physical server itself can be manipulated.  IMO it's better to lock down and preserve an original and instead provide an exact digital copy for an examination.    As a CISSP, that's exactly what I would do. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Your point makes no sense as the contents of a physical server itself can be manipulated.  IMO it's better to lock down and preserve an original and instead provide an exact digital copy for an examination.    As a CISSP, that's exactly what I would do. 

 

Would you though, wait ten days before alerting the FBI to the breach - and only inform them after you've dismantled the server, scrapped it for parts, and (allegedly) used those parts in several other servers as CrowdStrike did?

 

Or would you want to wait for the authorities first?

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

I'll wait until Ben Sasse weighs in on this.

 

Assuming he agrees with what I want to think.

 

Way to chime in with a stupid point not germane to the conversation.

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Way to chime in with a stupid point not germane to the conversation.

[Deranged Rhino]