25 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidWhich is it, Joe - a vast criminal conspiracy or just some rich folks doing some "unsavory" things?
Let us stipulate that the liberal pundits on this thread have absolutely no compunction with the dealings (dealings in everything unholy) of the Biden family. This is a true factual statement by AvJoe. If they disagree, I invite them to tell us what about the Bidens, or any one of them, they find unsavory.
25 Jun 23
@metal-brain said"The Trump campaign had gotten a whiff of Clinton email hacking, too. According to recently unsealed court documents, former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos said that it was at an April 26 meeting at a London hotel that he was told by a professor closely connected to the Russian government that the Kremlin had obtained compromising information about Clinton.
"If true" means unconfirmed rumor.
Give it up. It was a false rumor. There is no evidence of Russian collusion with Trump. Never was.
"They have dirt on her," Papadopoulos said he was told. "They have thousands of emails.""
Then on June 12th: "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told a British Sunday television show that emails related to Clinton were "pending publication."
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-11-03/inside-story-how-russians-hacked-the-democrats-emails
The Russians started releasing the materials Papadopoulos referred starting in June 14, 2016 first through a website they had created called DCLeaks:
"Starting in June 2016 , the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com , including documents stolen from a number of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign."
Mueller Report, Vol I, p. 41
And later through Wikileaks; Mueller even had the exact name of the file containing the emails that was sent by the Russians to Wikileaks:
"On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject "big archive" and the message "a new attempt." 163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg." 164 Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it.165 On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Gucci fer 2.0 account that it had "the 1 Gb or so archive" and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week." 166 On
July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC computer networks. 167
Mueller Report, p. 46
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
@no1marauder
Like I said, a false rumor was used to start the investigation.
Mueller is a liar and a creep. He is a witch hunt guy. Ask Steven Hatfill.
His report means nothing. Crowdstrike president said there was "no evidence" Russia hacked the DNC. The end. Stop clinging to falsehoods promoted by Witch hunt Mueller.
@metal-brain saidYou know as well I as do you are lying about Crowdstrike; I've debunked that line of your's using Crowdstrike's own words numerous times (partially it's because you are too stubbornly stupid to admit that "hacking" and "exfiltrating" are two different things).
@no1marauder
Like I said, a false rumor was used to start the investigation.
Mueller is a liar and a creep. He is a witch hunt guy. Ask Steven Hatfill.
His report means nothing. Crowdstrike president said there was "no evidence" Russia hacked the DNC. The end. Stop clinging to falsehoods promoted by Witch hunt Mueller.
I'll give the link one last time:
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
MB: Crowdstrike president said there was "no evidence" Russia hacked the DNC.
Lie (since I've given you this link at least a dozen times):
"Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?
Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.
"Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network."
Anyone who is still thinking that you haven't lied incessantly about this, can simply read the link.
25 Jun 23
@no1marauder saidYou are projecting again. You are the liar.
You know as well I as do you are lying about Crowdstrike; I've debunked that line of your's using Crowdstrike's own words numerous times (partially it's because you are too stubbornly stupid to admit that "hacking" and "exfiltrating" are two different things).
I'll give the link one last time:
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-nationa ...[text shortened]... Anyone who is still thinking that you haven't lied incessantly about this, can simply read the link.
What part of "no evidence" do you not understand??????
You cannot hack without exfiltrating you idiot! A hack without exfiltrating is called a failed hack. Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.
@metal-brain saidYou're simply lying; the CEO of Crowdstrike never, ever said there was "no evidence" the Russians hacked the DNC - in fact, he has repeatedly, including under oath, said the exact opposite.
You are projecting again. You are the liar.
What part of "no evidence" do you not understand??????
You cannot hack without exfiltrating you idiot! A hack without exfiltrating is called a failed hack. Give it up. You are making a fool of yourself.
Here's his testimony: https://www.dni.gov/files/HPSCI_Transcripts/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted.pdf
Page 24 in particular.
@no1marauder saidHenry said "no evidence it was exfiltrated". Same thing.
You're simply lying; the CEO of Crowdstrike never, ever said there was "no evidence" the Russians hacked the DNC - in fact, he has repeatedly, including under oath, said the exact opposite.
Here's his testimony: https://www.dni.gov/files/HPSCI_Transcripts/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted.pdf
Page 24 in particular.
No exfiltration, no information taken.
That means a failed hack which amounts to no hack.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exfiltrate
Are trying to fool me or yourself?
25 Jun 23
@metal-brain saidYou never actually read his testimony, did you?
Henry said "no evidence it was exfiltrated". Same thing.
No exfiltration, no information taken.
That means a failed hack which amounts to no hack.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exfiltrate
Are trying to fool me or yourself?
He said the Russians hacked the emails and while their wasn't direct evidence i.e. like real time observation of exfiltration, there was ample circumstantial evidence of it. And he didn't have, like Mueller did, the exact name of the file the Russians sent to Wikileaks containing the stolen emails.
So less than two months after Pappadoulous was told the Russians had thousands of emails stolen from the DNC, those same emails began to be published.
Some "false rumor".
25 Jun 23
@no1marauder saidHow long are you going to keep beating this dead horse?
You never actually read his testimony, did you?
He said the Russians hacked the emails and while their wasn't direct evidence i.e. like real time observation of exfiltration, there was ample circumstantial evidence of it. And he didn't have, like Mueller did, the exact name of the file the Russians sent to Wikileaks containing the stolen emails.
So less than two mon ...[text shortened]... sands of emails stolen from the DNC, those same emails began to be published.
Some "false rumor".
Circumstantial evidence is not real evidence. It is a mere indicator, not proof.
Stop pretending circumstantial means something that is does not.
You have been brainwashed by partisan bias and Mueller is witch hunt prosecutor. He tried to ruin Steven Hatfill's life and he cost the FBI 5.8 million because of that witch hunt.
The only reason Mueller still as a job is because witch hunts are exactly what the corrupt establishment wanted him to go on. He was covering up for the real anthrax mailers. Those mailings were to dupe people into supporting war with Iraq by falsely claiming Iraq did it.
That false flag anthrax attack had to be covered up because it came from an American lab. In a non corrupt world Mueller would have ruined his own career for such incompetence, but incompetence implies he did what he did by accident. He did it on purpose because that is exactly what he was hired to do, coverup for the real anthrax mailers.
You never actually read about the Anthrax Investigation, did you?
@no1marauder saidUhh, isn't that question that curious Americans are asking? Is their president corrupt, given what we have learned from his son? Are you mad at me?? Did I upset you with these simple legitimate questions? Have you not watched the news?
Which is it, Joe - a vast criminal conspiracy or just some rich folks doing some "unsavory" things?
Here is a question. The Biden people watch the news, so why don't they tell Joe what is being said, so that he can step up to the mike and explain to the world what is the truth?. Why the snide smile when asked about it?...Why does he not publish the facts of all the seemingly nefarious activity, all of the millions, all of the 20 accounts, for obvious laundering?
The thing is, it all warrants an investigation. You know it, I know it, Sonhouse, et al know it. Why no investigation? These are rhetorical questions, I am right, you are wrong, so no need to embarass your self with a response......and your infernal links.
25 Jun 23
@averagejoe1 saidWhatever happened to your "I'll answer any question" shtick? You certainly didn't answer mine.
Uhh, isn't that question that curious Americans are asking? Is their president corrupt, given what we have learned from his son? Are you mad at me?? Did I upset you with these simple legitimate questions? Have you not watched the news?
Here is a question. The Biden people watch the news, so why don't they tell Joe what is being said, so that he can step up to th ...[text shortened]... right, you are wrong, so no need to embarass your self with a response......and your infernal links.
The 5 years of investigation still haven't produced one shred of evidence showing that Joe Biden received $1 from any illegal or even "unsavory" activity. So how can he "explain" schemes and accounts it has not been shown he knew anything about?
@metal-brain saidYou've shown your ignorance on this point before in order to try to hide the fact you have consistently lied about what Crowdstrike found. Circumstantial evidence is legally admissible evidence that gives rise to a logical inference that a fact exists. In this case, having already shown that the Russians hacked the systems, it would be pretty absurd to believe that they then didn't bother to exfiltrate the data. But Crowdstrike had circumstantial evidence beyond that as Henry testified.
How long are you going to keep beating this dead horse?
Circumstantial evidence is not real evidence. It is a mere indicator, not proof.
Stop pretending circumstantial means something that is does not.
You have been brainwashed by partisan bias and Mueller is witch hunt prosecutor. He tried to ruin Steven Hatfill's life and he cost the FBI 5.8 million because of that ...[text shortened]... p for the real anthrax mailers.
You never actually read about the Anthrax Investigation, did you?
And the further facts that mere months after a Trump campaign official was told the Russians had such emails and intended to get them published to damage HRC's campaign, that thousands of such emails were published gives more than a mere "logical inference" that the initial information was correct. The FBI would have been grossly negligent not to investigate given these facts. And in their investigation, they actually discovered the name of the file sent to Wikileaks from the Russians!
This is really open and shut as every official investigation has concluded.
25 Jun 23
@no1marauder saidSTOP LYING!
You've shown your ignorance on this point before in order to try to hide the fact you have consistently lied about what Crowdstrike found. Circumstantial evidence is legally admissible evidence that gives rise to a logical inference that a fact exists. In this case, having already shown that the Russians hacked the systems, it would be pretty absurd to believe that they t ...[text shortened]... ks from the Russians!
This is really open and shut as every official investigation has concluded.
What part of "no evidence" do you not understand?
25 Jun 23
@no1marauder saidMarauder, I went back a few pages, what question did you ask? I will most assuredly answer it. Please ask me a question. I am begging, and we will enjoy it more than your pontification.
Whatever happened to your "I'll answer any question" shtick? You certainly didn't answer mine.
The 5 years of investigation still haven't produced one shred of evidence showing that Joe Biden received $1 from any illegal or even "unsavory" activity. So how can he "explain" schemes and accounts it has not been shown he knew anything about?
Marauder, above you say 5 years of investigation that has been thwarted at every turn. Redaction city. Please view Repub Comey on any interview, as he laments the problems of getting information on 'the money' and 'the accounts' and the answers to simple questions. Our pres is rememdously wealthy on a government salary, his law practice 45 years ago produced enough to live on, but things have changed. This man (?) jhas our lives in his hands. He talks about transparency, for god sake.
Your disingenuous posts simply stink. It is like you are on his payroll. Be fair, debate about the need to know that he has not enriched himself.... About the need for him to beam from the oval office an explanation of his riches. Y'all keep saying 'Hunter, Hunter Hunter, enough already about Hunter!!" He does not have to mention Hunter, we only care about his riches.
Can you at least say that he should assuage our concerns, and be transparent about that which his citizens are concerned about?
That is a question, please ask me one
25 Jun 23
@metal-brain said🙄
@Suzianne
Hunter Biden illegally deducted tens of thousands of dollars spent on prostitutes and a sex club from his taxes. You must be so proud of him.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hunter-biden-wrote-hookers-sex-club-taxes-whistleblower