who said I watched news at home?
Funny you should frame it that way.
What would it look like if there were a truly dangerous, ignorant president with autocratic, dictatorial tendencies?
Would members of that presidents party hold him first to account, or would it be the opposition party?
2.0's activi ies wasn't the entirety of what went on to my knowledge. The FBI itself was the first to indicate there was Russian intrusion by more than one en y. The critique itself seemed to have more than a small axe to grind, so I was left with something beyond my ability to evaluate that was very obviously pushing a specific bias. This leads me, absent an independent neutral analysis, to be somewhat skeptical of what was presented.
You have shown evidence that SOME of what went on MAY have been a nefarious inside job. This isn't what you want to hear, so you build this up into "it was definitely an inside job" in your head.
The level of evidence required to show that it was all faked is way more than you have presented so far. You yourself admit that you don't know what information may be classified.
The biggest hole in your theory is that there has been no investigation or prosecution into anyone at the DNC for faking the intrusion that I am aware of. The FBI tends to look askance at being lied to.
Are you forgetting the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC server?
Who initially informed the DNC that they were being hacked by the Russians?
"didn't access" or "not allowed"?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...owdstrike.html
DNC says they were never asked. FBI says they asked at multiple levels.
How have you determined that the DNC outright "refused to cooperate", as opposed to was too disorganized to get their together, or that people at the FBI thought they had asked but really didn't?“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.
Have you seen the responses to the FBI requests?
[edit]
Think carefully. I have a lot of experience in asking en ies to produce data, I will pull the professional expertise card in evaluating your answer.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-07-2017 at 12:44 PM.
Democrats might kamikaze Trump. Sure they might eventually take him out but they will take themselves out of contention for the next several decades
All that just for one orange haired guy
FBI denied, straight out of Comey's mouth.
"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.
“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ed-dnc-servers
It really comes down to who you believe, the FBI or the DNC.
I'm going with the FBI as the DNC was shown to be completely corrupt.
So your assumption is that the FBI made really clear requests, and were told absolutely no by the DNC, and told their boss they didn't make a mistake, and that the DNC MUST be lying.
Have you seen these requests?
Here is a possibility:
The FBI asked for access a few times at one or two levels, and the requests were given to the wrong people, got misrouted, or lost in the middle of election turmoil.
Then, when the higher ups wanted an update, the underlings swore up and down they made really good efforts to get access to their superiors, who briefed the director.
Would this scenario be congruent with statements from the FBI that say they were denied access, and the DNC executive says he never was asked?
How have you eliminated this potential explanation that fits the available data?
you could come up with alternate scenarios for days on end.
Like I said earlier it really comes down to who you believe the FBI or the DNC.
We witnessed the shady corruption within the DNC during the primary, I'm taking what Comey said at face value.
The answer to my question that you so studiously avoided answering is, yes, the miscommunication scenario explains the available information.
So you didn't explore any other possibility other than the one you liked that fit with your starting theory.
In my professional opinion as an auditor with thousands of hours of experience in asking for, and receiving, such access, I will tell you that the "miscommunication" scenario is far more likely than your pet "DNC has something to hide so they flatly refused to cooperate with the FBI" theory, especially since you have not bothered trying to falsify your assertion.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-08-2017 at 12:25 PM.
We can indeed.
My scenario allows for the possibility that both parties are telling the truth as they see it, and does not assume any over-arching devious motives, which your scenario does.
sure your scenario allows it. but it seems silly to me as the DNC had just been exposed as corrupt liars during the primaries. what makes you think they would be telling the truth?We can indeed.
My scenario allows for the possibility that both parties are telling the truth as they see it, and does not assume any over-arching devious motives, which your scenario does.
Because I have not seen any evidence to say they are not about this subject, and more importantly NEITHER HAVE YOU.
That is how it works in critical thinking land. People are telling the truth, until shown otherwise.
That is how we know for certain Trump is a lying sack of .
Bad News for Trump... This could get him impeached...
TRUMP RUSSIA-NEW INFORMATION
1. Trump took $35 million from Russian company Rusnano... One of the founders of the company-Vladimir Putin!!
2. Trump took a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian company called Renaissance Capital.
3. Trump sold 1/5th of all United States uranium to the Russians.
4. Trump got $145 million donated to his charity from the same Russians/shareholders of the company that he sold the uranium to.
5. Trump took millions in donations to his charity from power players in Russia like the mayor of Moscow, business tycoons and other govt officials...
JUST KIDDING!!!! All this was done by BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON and the CLINTON FOUNDATION! Lol
Great job Chris.
We already knew the Clinton's get money from many foreign sources.
So when Trump releases HIS tax returns... Wait a sec... Something to hide?
Is this all you need to embrace the Donald?
lets talk about this one for a bit.
1) who are the russians you speak of? is this the russian government?
2) can any of this american uranium be transported to russia?
3) can the government of russia use any of this uranium?
4) did clinton have the power to veto or approve the deal?
*ding*
Trash president, not Hillary nor Bill.
and no links provided. 4chan, or other paranoid rightwing conspiracies assholes, maybe?
pence is a liar
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-08-2017 at 05:50 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
