Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Andrew Prutsok]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

        This headline news story* this morning about Bill Barr's DOJ "investigation" of the FBI's 2016 FISA application on Carter Page has all of the hallmarks of a classic Trumpaganda/disinformation campaign.   (It's the same old Trump/"Nunes Memo" PR stunt in the guise of a new DOJ report.)

         The PR methodology reminds me of all of those weekly headline MSM stories prior to the 2016 election about "crooked" Hillary's Emails-- sensational nothing burgers served up to the public by the MSM's anonymous FBI "sources."

       It also reminds me of Trump repeatedly pushing Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation of Biden.  It wasn't about conducting an actual investigation.  It was about Trumpaganda--  creating a false impression that Biden did something "crooked."

      Check out the #1 story* at AOL "news" this morning, then read the excerpt from the same article (italics mine.)

      Conveniently timed to gaslight Trump's delusional cult members during the impeachment hearings.

*A former FBI staffer is reportedly being investigated over an altered document in the Russia probe

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/22/a-former-fbi-staffer-is-reportedly-being-investigated-over-an-altered-document-in-the-russia-probe/23865967/

November 22, 2019

       ... "It is unclear which document was allegedly altered by the FBI lawyer, nor what changes were made, nor what impact the document had on the Russia investigation. "

The Post has now issued a correction to the original article, disavowing the story's claim that the persons suspected of altering a document worked for Peter Strozk. 

[W. Niederhut]

22 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Is that your professional opinion?

No.  I'm not getting paid a dime to post comments here.

But let's be honest.  Who ever heard of a lead story on a news website being based on such a nothing burger?  A low level FBI attorney wrote something unspecified on a form-- something that had no significant impact on the Russiagate investigations?

Why is this non-story in the MSM headlines on November 22, 2019?

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Who ever heard of a lead story on a news website being based on such a nothing burger? 

Ummm.... Iraqi WMD?

 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Why is this non-story in the MSM headlines on November 22, 2019?

You'd have to ask CNN. They are the ones who broke the story. It was an anonymous leak featuring anonymous  agents doing unspecified things, and then two anonymous officials claim there is nothing at all to whatever it is which happened and that the IG Report says no FISA abuse occurred. It's called "getting out ahead of a story."  

Reading between the lines, it means FISA abuse did occur and will feature in the IG report.

[Cliff Varnell]

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

TechDirt claims the necessary downloading speed is achieved with a 180 Mbps connection, while others disagree (there are long rebuttals to the article you linked).

Citations please.   Tell us why you find these rebuttals so compelling.

VICE News contributor Karl Bode also wrote the following:

Stories Claiming DNC Hack Was 'Inside Job' Rely Heavily On A Stupid Conversion Error No 'Forensic Expert' Would Make

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170814/11490537992/stories-claiming-dnc-hack-was-inside-job-rely-heavily-stupid-conversion-error-no-forensic-expert-would-make.shtml

22.7 megabytes per second (MB/s) sounds impossibly fast if you don't know any better. But if you do the simple conversion from megabytes per second to megabits per second necessary to determine the actual speed of the connection used, you get a fairly reasonable 180 megabits per second (Mbps). While the report proclaims that "no internet service provider" can provide such speeds, ISPs around the world routinely offer speeds far, far faster -- from 500 Mbps to even 1 Gbps.

And despite the report oddly pooh pooh'ing Romanian broadband's "delivery overheads," many Romanian cities actually have faster internet connectivity than either Russia or in the States (check out Akamai's global broadband rankings). Bernie Sanders learned this last year when he unintentionally pissed off many Romanians when trying to highlight the dismal state of U.S. connectivity. Even then, the hacker in question could have used any number of tricks to hide his or her location and real identity from a high-bandwidth vantage point, so the claim that the hacker couldn't achieve 180 Mbps through a VPN is simply nonsense.

</q>

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

So it’s an ongoing dispute.

It is??  If the subject isn't settled why do you report the work of Bill Binney as a fact? 

You have claimed that the "reality-based community" has proven there was no Russian hack, haven't you?

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Logically, even if something were possible it doesn’t mean it actually happened that way.

That hasn't stopped you from making claims of fact.

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

Doubts of the alleged Russian hack are not limited to the download speeds, but include. 1) Crowdstrike’s inexplicable delays dealing with the original breaches.

Crowdstrike reported the Russian hack to the DNC, their client, within a day.  It took the DNC several weeks to get together with the FBI.  What's so "inexplicable" about that?

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

2) Guccifer 2.0’s identity still in dispute.

And yet you have repeatedly claimed as a fact that Guccifer 2.0 had no connections to the GRU.

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

3) Wikileaks says it ain’t so.

Assange has repeatedly said he didn't get the e-mails from the Russian gov't.

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

4) refusal of US officials to interview Wikileaks or associates. 

And that proves the Russians didn't hack the DNC?

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

5) Crowdstrike only source of allegation, and produced only draft reports 

And that proves the Russians didn't hack the DNC?

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

6) no credible evidence of hack in official US reports.

And yet Robert Mueller indicted 12 GRU officials for hacking the DNC.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment

The indictment alleges a detailed and wide-ranging conspiracy to hack into the computers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and others and to reveal information in order to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The special counsel charges 12 officials of the Russian military intelligence agency (“GRU”) with targeting more than 300 individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party or the campaign and leaking tens of thousands of stolen documents. </q>

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Assange and associates have consistently said the official “hack” theory is bogus.

Direct quote from Assange that Russians didn't hack the DNC, please.  "We didn't get it from the Russian gov't" is a non-denial denial.

11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

The appropriate denunciation is to any charges whatsoever, and both administrations deserve contempt and admonishment for the recent day in court as described by Craig Murray. Pretty appalling by any measure, and it will continue to be appalling as it continues. 

I knew you couldn't denounce Trump specifically.  Such are Trumpenlinks.

[Jeff Carter]

54 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Citations please. .. blah blah blah

I see where you are going with this, but you have it all backwards. I’ve never claimed “ the ‘reality-based community’ has proven there was no Russian hack” - I’ve consistently said that such theory was in dispute and the actual evidence is lacking. The New York Times et al are the ones who have claimed that the issue is factually settled.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I see where you are going with this, but you have it all backwards. I’ve never claimed “ the ‘reality-based community’ has proven there was no Russian hack” - I’ve consistently said that such theory was in dispute and the actual evidence is lacking. The New York Times et al are the ones who have claimed that the issue is factually settled.

Jeff Carter on pg 38 of this thread, Nov. 15:

Just my observation, but the embrace of a now discredited narrative of “Russian collusion”, led by factions of the intelligence agencies and pushed hard by Congressional Democrats, is largely responsible for the current insanity. </q>

Discredited by what?  How can you ignore the fact that Trump openly colluded with the Russians when he asked them to get ahold of Hillary's e-mails?

Or Don Junior admitting her tried to get dirt on Clinton from Russian sources?

Or Manafort and Gates giving internal polling data to a Russian oligarch thru Kilimnik?

You ignore what the FBI did to take down Clinton's campaign -- and you ignore Trump's outright fascism.  You know where you can stick that "loyal" opposition.

The discredit is all yours, Jeff.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Anyone who posits a "loyal opposition" to Donald Trump doesn't understand the man.

In Trump world "loyalty" to Trump equals loyalty to country, while "disloyalty" to Trump equals disloyalty to the United States.

Loyalty to the United States is a form of disloyalty to the wanna-be Mussolini.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Discredited by what?  How can you ignore the fact that Trump openly colluded...

Discredited by the Mueller Report's  Introduction to Volume 1 p2:

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

[Douglas Caddy]

DOJ Inspector General's report pretty much clears the FBI and its top officials:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7716317/Inspector-generals-investigate-investigators-report-NOT-condemn-Comey-Strzok.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-watchdog-finds-political-bias-did-not-taint-top-officials-running-the-fbis-russia-probe-but-documents-other-errors/2019/11/22/4b2f51de-0d48-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0HSVzEespCUEErZPI6Ipg1rX7qvmYrtJeKD4CHfJxjd0n0Efg3HC9hn0c

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[Douglas Caddy]

Charges of Ukrainian Meddling? A Russian Operation, U.S. Intelligence Says

Moscow has run a yearslong operation to blame Ukraine for its own 2016 election interference. Republicans have used similar talking points to defend President Trump in impeachment proceedings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/ukraine-russia-interference.html

 

[Douglas Caddy]

Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/22/politics/nunes-vienna-trip-ukrainian-prosecutor-biden/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0j6PH_omTIPtvU4BZy8ZfrMSaYd8MQCgU5UNGV996E09JBD366h-r2WP0

 

[Cliff Varnell]

14 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Discredited by the Mueller Report's  Introduction to Volume 1 p2:

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

You're taking the quote out of context.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Mueller, emphasis added:

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. </q>

Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion without finding grounds for charging conspiracy.

That's a long, long way from a "discredit."

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Douglas Caddy]

Rep. Nunes facing House Ethics Committee investigation:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-dem-says-ethics-investigation-into-devin-nunes-likely/ar-BBXevdX?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE07DHP

 

[Paul Brancato]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're taking the quote out of context.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Mueller, emphasis added:

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. </q>

Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion without finding grounds for charging conspiracy.

That's a long, long way from a "discredit."

 

Yes it is a long way. Thanks Cliff. It seems that critical thinking is slowly disappearing. 

[Jeff Carter]

7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're taking the quote out of context.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

Mueller, emphasis added:

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. </q>

Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion without finding grounds for charging conspiracy.

That's a long, long way from a "discredit."

 

This is pure sophistry, as confirmed by the actual details of the individuals and their extremely tenuous “ties”. The entire paragraph amounts to the wholly uncontroversial observation that the Trump campaign “expected it would benefit electorally” from the Wikileaks publication of Clinton emails. The rest is conjecture. There was no “collusion” discovered or catalogued.