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

[row_33]

They are milking the bogus file. Keeping hundreds of leeches billing 10 hours a day going nowhere.

[BillsFan4]

Now there is the rub.

Huh? Would you rather they not examine the people who wrote the assessment they were reviewing the accuracy of? It's not like they relied on those interviews to get their information.

 

The Senate intelligence committee is doing their own investigation. They talked to 100's of different people and reviewed every single piece of information, classified or otherwise, that went into the ICA and even the information that didn't. 100,000 pages of documents.

 

They've been extremely thorough. I'd have been more worried if, in their review of the ICA, they hadn't examined the people who actually wrote it.

[grinreaper]

Huh? Would you rather they not examine the people who wrote the assessment they were reviewing the accuracy of? It's not like they relied on those interviews to get their information.

 

The Senate intelligence committee is doing their own investigation. They talked to 100's of different people and reviewed every single piece of information, classified or otherwise, that went into the ICA and even the information that didn't. 100,000 pages of documents.

 

They've been extremely thorough. I'd have been more worried if, in their review of the ICA, they hadn't examined the people who actually wrote it.

As has been posted here many, many, many times James Clapper and John Brennen hand picked a small group of people to investigate this. Their predetermined results were then touted as the conclusions off the IC. Using their assessment is worthless.

[BillsFan4]

As has been posted here many, many, many times James Clapper and John Brennen hand picked a small group of people to investigate this. Their predetermined results were then touted as the conclusions off the IC. Using their assessment is worthless.

That's where I think you're getting confused. The senate intelligence committee didn't use their assessment. They examined it to see if it was truthful, reviewing every single person involved and every piece of information those intelligence officers used to make their assessment.

 

They were examining the validity of that ICA and came away with a general consensus that they trust the conclusions it came to.

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?435050-1/senate-russia-probe-expanded-looking-possible-collusion

Full Press conference from the heads of the senate intelligence committee updating on the Russian election probe.

I tried to transcribe the first 5 minutes or so as best I could, since it pertains to the discussion we were having here.

It's probably easier to just listen yourself, but here it is anyway -

They conducted over 250+ hours of interviews, almost 4,000 pages of transcripts, almost 100,000 pages of documents reviewed. It includes highly classified intelligence reporting, emails, campaign documents & technical cyber analysis products. They've held 11 open hearings this year that touched on Russian interference. Their staff has worked 6 to 7 days a week since January to get to the point they are at today.

So far in the interview process, they have talked to everybody that had a hand or a voice in the intelligence community assessment. They reviewed all the supporting documents that went into it and in addition the things that were thrown on the cutting room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA itself. They interviewed every official of the Obama administration. They interviewed individuals from around the world.

They've come to a general consensus among members and staff that they trust the conclusions of the intelligence community assessment. But they won't close their consideration/investigation of the ICA yet in the unlikelihood that they find additional information through the completion of their investigation.

For all the reasons outlined above, that presser (which I watched) was a joke. It offered nothing new and confirmed that the collusion talk is devoid of evidence and they doubled down in the hacking of the DNC narrative (a clue which interests they're truly serving - it ain't yours or mine, and it darn sure ain't America's interests).

 

They backed the ICA which has already been proven to have contained falsified evidence designed to mislead the American public and said they talked to everyone who complied the report (which again was a hand picked, small team of officers who were ordered to find evidence of interference, all in direct violation of USIC protocols) - so in other words they're sticking to the USIC playbook and not running an independent investigation.

 

Warner has said all along that the biggest threat we face from this are Russian fake news bots (that shows you his priorities: censorship and protecting Americans from being able to think for themselves). This was echoed again by him.

 

It's a trap, y'all.

That's where I think you're getting confused. The senate intelligence committee didn't use their assessment. They examined it to see if it was truthful, reviewing every single person involved and every piece of information those intelligence officers used to make their assessment.

They were examining the validity of that ICA and came away with a general consensus that they trust the conclusions it came to.

The fact they came away with a conclusion to trust the ICA, when it's been proven forensically that the conclusions stated in the ICA were impossible and manipulated, should be alarming. Not reassuring. (imo)

Edited October 6, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[BillsFan4]

For all the reasons outlined above, that presser (which I watched) was a joke. It offered nothing new and confirmed that the collusion talk is devoid of evidence and they doubled down in the hacking of the DNC narrative (a clue which interests they're truly serving - it ain't yours or mine, and it darn sure ain't America's interests).

They backed the ICA which has already been proven to have contained falsified evidence designed to mislead the American public and said they talked to everyone who complied the report (which again was a hand picked, small team of officers who were ordered to find evidence of interference, all in direct violation of USIC protocols) - so in other words they're sticking to the USIC playbook and not running an independent investigation.

Warner has said all along that the biggest threat we face from this are Russian fake news bots (that shows you his priorities: censorship and protecting Americans from being able to think for themselves). This was echoed again by him.

It's a trap, y'all.

 

The fact they came away with a conclusion to trust the ICA, when it's been proven forensically that the conclusions stated in the ICA were impossible and manipulated, should be alarming. Not reassuring. (imo)

- the collusion case is still open. I thought Mueller had taken the lead on it anyway, no?

But just to be clear I have never once said or claimed that trump was involved in collusion. In fact, I don't think he was.

 

-They talked to a lot more people than just the ones who complied the ICA report. They said they interviewed 100 different people (sounds like they interviewed anyone and everyone with any possible info or ties to any of this and investigated many of their motives). They also went over every scrap of evidence that was used in the ICA as well as any other information that wasn't included in the assessment, much of it classified. How is that not an independent investigation? Had they only interviewed the people who put the report together, took their word for everything and called it a day, I would agree. But that is not even remotely close to what happened.

 

What falsified evidence, impossible conclusions and forensic proof are you talking about? Are you referring to that stuff on Guccifer, the VIPS memo and "the forensicator" analysis of that metadata? That stuff about the internet download speed and eastern time zone stamp?

 

If so, from what I have seen of it, it's is not really proof, forensic or otherwise. It basically amounts to nothing more than one possible theory of what could have happened and I've seen a number of experts refuting that theory.

 

There really isn't any way to come to a definitive conclusion on some of that stuff anyway, not from the tiny bit of metadata that's available (at least the way I understand it).

 

I'd be happy to go into more detail and provide links if this is indeed what you are referring to.

 

If you are referring to something different please tell me and ignore the above... lol.

 

 

I will say, without knowing what classified information they have, we really have no way of knowing for sure on any of this.

But It seems like everyone (on both sides of the aisle) who has seen that classified information for themselves feels that Russia definitely tried to interfere in our election.

[row_33]

Anything at all yet? Are they waiting for October 2020?

[Koko78]

Anything at all yet? Are they waiting for October 2020?

 

C'mon man, you know it takes time for Democrat attorneys to turn potential molehills into mountains.

 

They've got a president to bring down, it takes time to manufacture!

[Deranged Rhino]

 

What falsified evidence, impossible conclusions and forensic proof are you talking about? Are you referring to that stuff on Guccifer, the VIPS memo and "the forensicator" analysis of that metadata? That stuff about the internet download speed and eastern time zone stamp?

If so, from what I have seen of it, it's is not really proof, forensic or otherwise. It basically amounts to nothing more than one possible theory of what could have happened and I've seen a number of experts refuting that theory.

 

This is frankly untrue. What the VIPs memo and ensuing investigations prove, without a shadow of a doubt, is that the conclusion reached by the ICA is impossible. The VIPs findings have not been refuted, the only experts who attempted to do so did so with smoke and misdirection.

 

The ICA says plainly the meta data proves the DNC was hacked by Russian GRU assets. They did not say it was downloaded from an inside source, the document's conclusion is clear: the DNC was hacked, this meta data proves it. But the meta data in fact proves their conclusion is an outrageous lie at worst, a reflection of a haphazard investigation at best. This has not been refuted in any meaningful way by any expert.

 

The connection speed of the DNC servers is irrelevant when you consider the ICA makes it plain these GRU assets were doing everything they could to mask their identity. That means they're using proxy servers and masking signals. The top cyber intelligence officers in the world, the men and women who built our cyber defenses, have all said the download speeds in the metadata are beyond the realm of our known physics if the perpetrators were taking as much care to cover their tracks as the ICA claims they were. In other words, the ICA is lying to you.

 

Mind you, the "proof" the ICA cites in these documents is the fact the "hackers" used known Russian cyberwarfare tools to do the job. Step back and reexamine that statement in light of the document's other conclusions...

 

On one hand the ICA is telling us these are cyber masterminds who are covering their tracks to such an extent that the NSA's only piece of evidence is this metadata, yet the same cyber masterminds are so lazy they used a tool that would immediately be traced back to Russian state operatives.

 

You also must factor in the Vault 7 releases which included the CIA's cyberwarfare toolkit and playbook. The primary tool and program (marbles) used by the CIA is one which masks/alters the metadata and leave behind misleading digital fingerprints of other nation's cyber warefare divisions. This isn't speculation or conspiracy, it's verified documentation through Wikileaks's Vault 7 ( https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_14588467.html) and confirmed by both Langley and NSA.

 

So, that means the only evidence the ICA is presenting to the public is evidence we know they routinely manipulate to mislead investigations, and the conclusion the ICA draws from this scant evidence fundamentally violates the laws of physics.

 

None of this is in dispute. The only defense offered of these facts came from the Washington Post, and was parroted thereafter, who argued the DNC's connection speeds were more than fast enough to achieve the download speeds contained in the metadata. Of course, that's only relevant if we believe the "hackers" didn't attempt to hide their identity - which would mean that there would be mountains of evidence the NSA, FBI and CIA could release to the public that wouldn't compromise sources or methods.

 

I will say, without knowing what classified information they have, we really have no way of knowing for sure on any of this.
But It seems like everyone (on both sides of the aisle) who has seen that classified information for themselves feels that Russia definitely tried to interfere in our election.

 

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2003/08/judith_miller_duped.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part1/wmd.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/spies-lies-and-weapons-what-went-wrong/302878/

[Tiberius]

And with all the other propaganda that criminal regime in Moscow is flooding us with look at the friends they courting:

 

 

**This is the third visit followers of UVA alum Spencer have made in the college town since May — when a group of chanting men with torches shouted, “Russia is our friend.”

 

 

Dozens of torch-wielding hate-mongers flocked to a Confederate statue in Charlottesville, Va., for the first time since a neo-Nazi’s deadly attack on protesters in August.

 

The group, led by far-right extremist Richard Spencer, sported white-collared polo shirts and slacks while they briefly surrounded a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in Emancipation Park, near the University of Virginia campus, around 8 p.m. Saturday.***

 

 

Helps to further explain why Trump had trouble denouncing them even after a terror attack

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/white-supremacists-brandishing-torches-return-charlottesville-article-1.3548325

[BillsFan4]

This is frankly untrue. What the VIPs memo and ensuing investigations prove, without a shadow of a doubt, is that the conclusion reached by the ICA is impossible. The VIPs findings have not been refuted, the only experts who attempted to do so did so with smoke and misdirection.

 

The ICA says plainly the meta data proves the DNC was hacked by Russian GRU assets. They did not say it was downloaded from an inside source, the document's conclusion is clear: the DNC was hacked, this meta data proves it. But the meta data in fact proves their conclusion is an outrageous lie at worst, a reflection of a haphazard investigation at best. This has not been refuted in any meaningful way by any expert.

 

The connection speed of the DNC servers is irrelevant when you consider the ICA makes it plain these GRU assets were doing everything they could to mask their identity. That means they're using proxy servers and masking signals. The top cyber intelligence officers in the world, the men and women who built our cyber defenses, have all said the download speeds in the metadata are beyond the realm of our known physics if the perpetrators were taking as much care to cover their tracks as the ICA claims they were. In other words, the ICA is lying to you.

 

Mind you, the "proof" the ICA cites in these documents is the fact the "hackers" used known Russian cyberwarfare tools to do the job. Step back and reexamine that statement in light of the document's other conclusions...

 

On one hand the ICA is telling us these are cyber masterminds who are covering their tracks to such an extent that the NSA's only piece of evidence is this metadata, yet the same cyber masterminds are so lazy they used a tool that would immediately be traced back to Russian state operatives.

 

You also must factor in the Vault 7 releases which included the CIA's cyberwarfare toolkit and playbook. The primary tool and program (marbles) used by the CIA is one which masks/alters the metadata and leave behind misleading digital fingerprints of other nation's cyber warefare divisions. This isn't speculation or conspiracy, it's verified documentation through Wikileaks's Vault 7 ( https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_14588467.html) and confirmed by both Langley and NSA.

 

So, that means the only evidence the ICA is presenting to the public is evidence we know they routinely manipulate to mislead investigations, and the conclusion the ICA draws from this scant evidence fundamentally violates the laws of physics.

 

None of this is in dispute. The only defense offered of these facts came from the Washington Post, and was parroted thereafter, who argued the DNC's connection speeds were more than fast enough to achieve the download speeds contained in the metadata. Of course, that's only relevant if we believe the "hackers" didn't attempt to hide their identity - which would mean that there would be mountains of evidence the NSA, FBI and CIA could release to the public that wouldn't compromise sources or methods.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

 

That is the ICA above, correct? I don't see where it says anything about the bolded statements you made. I don't see any mention of metadata or the GRU doing everything it could to mask their identity. I've read over it a couple times now. I don't see any mention of a lot of the claims you are making. Maybe I am just missing it? Or did they say it elsewhere?

They don't really get into many specifics in that ICA. Saying they used "cyber operations" (which can mean a pretty wide variety of things) is about as specific as they get in most cases.

 

Also, have they released the classified information they used to come to these assessments?

How do you know the NSA's only piece of evidence is the metadata? I find that hard to believe.

 

Just as one example, What about this leaked NSA classified document detailing Russian hacking efforts? (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766950-NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.html#document/p1) the girl who leaked it was even charged by the DOJ for doing so (and is currently behind bars awaiting trial IIRC).

 

 

Many of these conclusions seem based on assumptions of the hackers location, specific security measures used and specific method used to hack, none of which seems conclusively proven by this metadata.

It seems like it amounts to one possible theory. There are many other possible explanations that are just as likely.

 

For example, If it was copied earlier (which as I understand is a likely possibility) the download speeds are meaningless. They could have originally downloaded it at any speed then and analyzing the speed of the copy means nothing.

 

When you have to qualify a statement with "if this, this and this happened" then it's not really proof, unless you can prove all those other things too.

 

Even the forensicator himself doesn't make definitive claims about much of this stuff. He uses words like "assumptions", "likely", "estimated" and "the most probable interpretation of the metadata". From what I seen he never definitively says that it was an inside job or that it couldn't have been hacked. He even specifically says that he made no claim that the computer was connected to a DNC server or that the data might not have been copied earlier nor whether it might have been copied or leaked. He also said that the computer had eastern time zone setting in force (which can be done on any computer in any time zone).

 

 

Here's a pretty decent independent review done on the forensicators analysis (posted on one of the original sites to run the VIPS memo)-

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review

 

And another -

 

http://archive.is/t8DXQ

 

Here's something from some VIPS members themselves disputing the original conclusions of that memo -

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#vips-dissent

 

 

Here is part of a statement from Scott Ritter, member of VIPS, in regards to some claims made in the VIPS memo (which he refused to sign) -

 

"The analysis contained in the VIPS memorandum contradicts such an assertion (of the DNC hacking). Unfortunately, this conclusion is not supported by the data. I reached out to the forensic analysts (the forensicator and Adam carter) who conducted the analysis of the metadata in question. They have stated that there is no way to use the available metadata to determine where the copying of the data was done. In short, one cannot state that this data proves Guccifer 2.0 had direct access to the DNC server or that the data was located in the DNC when it was copied on July 5, 2016. These same analysts also note that the July 5 date that is pervasive on the metadata probably overwrote all prior modification times, meaning it is impossible to ascertain if there were any prior copy operations.

The VIPS memorandum also speaks of the insertion of telltale signs into data copied from the DNC server designed to implicate Russia. I have reached out to the analysts responsible for this assertion, and it appears that they mistakenly attributed actual document manipulation from an earlier date to the July 5 data transfer event"

 

 

The above articles bring up some very legit questions IMO.

 

I'm no expert in any of this stuff, though.

 

 

The thing is, there is a lot more in that ICA than just the DNC hacking, most of which the VIPS memo doesn't address. There is also a lot more to this whole russia investigation than just the DNC hacking.

 

 

I do agree that they haven't presented the general public with much information. Everything of significance has seemed to have been deemed classified. Without seeing more of this proof ourselves, we don't really have much to go on but all their words. But there are an awful lot of people much more in the know than any of us that have seen an awful lot of evidence and believe without a doubt that a Russia tries to influence and interfere in our election.

Edited October 9, 2017 by BillsFan4

[Tiberius]

Boy, Kremlin went all in to get Trump in the WH

 

 

 

 

Google officials have reportedly unearthed evidence that Russian operatives may have exploited the company’s largest platforms—including YouTube and Gmail—in an effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, according to The Washington Post. At least tens of thousands of dollars worth of advertisements were allegedly bought by Kremlin agents who were working to spread messages across Google platforms, said unnamed sources at the company who spoke to Post reporters. Unlike the ads previously discovered on Facebook, the ones on Google products originated from a different place than the troll farm affiliated with the Kremlin. Google has launched a probe into the reported evidence. The Post article follows The Daily Beast’s reports of Russian meddling in U.S. social media, including a Kremlin-supported series of videos on YouTube by black rappers “Williams and Kalvin Johnson” that targeted Hillary Clinton, calling her a racist and a “serial killer.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/google-officials-find-russian-bought-ads-on-youtube-gmail

[boyst]

Your mention of Kremlin made me think of gremlin. That was a good movie. I liked that little furby thing.

[Koko78]

Your mention of Kremlin made me think of gremlin. That was a good movie. I liked that little furby thing.

 

Just don't feed it after midnight.

[Tiberius]

Your mention of Kremlin made me think of gremlin. That was a good movie. I liked that little furby thing.

 

Makes me think about how a murderous, anti-American villain is best pals with our bigot in chief.

[boyst]

Makes me think about how a murderous, anti-American villain is best pals with our bigot in chief.

can you f33d them after dark or get them wet?

[B-Man]

THE FIX WAS IN: Pre-Exoneration: Comey Drafted Statement Ending Clinton Email Investigation Months Before Interviewing Her, FBI Confirms.

 

“’To me, this is so far out of bounds it’s not even in the stadium,’ Chris Swecker, who retired from the FBI in 2006 as assistant director for the criminal investigative division and acting executive assistant director for law enforcement services, previously told Newsweek.

 

‘That is just not how things operate…. It’s built in our DNA not to prejudge investigations, particularly from the top.’” Well, the rules are always different for the Clintons.

 

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/278567/

 

 

 

 

 

 

But in the Bizzaro World of the Left.

 

Clinton's account of how she was 'shivved' in the back by James Comey... - Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...shivved.../f6740438-957f-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b...

[Tiberius]

 

THE FIX WAS IN: Pre-Exoneration: Comey Drafted Statement Ending Clinton Email Investigation Months Before Interviewing Her, FBI Confirms.

 

“’To me, this is so far out of bounds it’s not even in the stadium,’ Chris Swecker, who retired from the FBI in 2006 as assistant director for the criminal investigative division and acting executive assistant director for law enforcement services, previously told Newsweek.

 

‘That is just not how things operate…. It’s built in our DNA not to prejudge investigations, particularly from the top.’” Well, the rules are always different for the Clintons.

 

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/278567/

 

 

 

 

 

 

But in the Bizzaro World of the Left.

 

Clinton's account of how she was 'shivved' in the back by James Comey... - Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...shivved.../f6740438-957f-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b...

 

I fired Comey over this Russia thing...

[Deranged Rhino]

[Tiberius]

I see he admitted obstructing justice. You like this chaos, da?