I never mentioned it. Because it isn't a lie. It remains neither proven or unproven. The frivolous and ridiculous prosecution of Michael Sussmann doesn't prove anything "fiction". Providing the FBI with a tip isn't illegal. Sussmann will defend himself in court. Unlike that other guy who took a plea. Durham investigation = bust.
As the Russian FSB's lead man in the United States, part of their frustration with Trump was that his direct lines of communication with his handlers in the Kremlin were easily exploited by his easily hacked passwords. One of the running gags at the NSA was to send him faked orders from the Vladimir Putin, which nearly turned fatal for Melania Trump when he was told to serve her Tide laundry detergent pods and tell her it was caviar.
I never mentioned the "Trump-Russia bank server lie" because such a lie doesn't exist. It was a tip based on credible information. You're the person who only mentions lies. Or in this case, posts a video of a traitor spewing them. Interviewed by a Dotard sycophant spewing lies. Dirty tricks = Roger Stone. "They essentially accuse your opponent of what they're doing". YES!! That is what Nunes is doing. John Solomon is another liar.
"Lying about who you got it from is"... IF that happened it's a "process crime". As per your objections of prosecutions of Dotard people - process crimes are BS. If (in the unlikely event) the Durham witch hunt results in a Sussmann conviction, President Joe Biden should pardon him.
Devin (from the very end): "The thing that worries me the most? Why would they want to double the size of the IRS? Double the number of agents? They have a plan to force the banks to produce the records of every American... so the IRS can go in and ...force them to pay more taxes".
LIAR!!! republicans have deliberately underfunded the IRS so wealthy tax cheats (like Dotard) can get away without paying what they owe. republicans have gone after poorer Americans and forced them to pay more taxes.
Quote: President Joe Biden [wants] $80 billion to beef up IRS audits of high earners — a necessary move given that the water carriers for the dynasties have done their utmost to make such audits exceedingly rare.
Quote: Poor taxpayers, or those earning less than $25,000 annually, have an audit rate of 0.69% — more than 50% higher than the overall audit rate.
Being able to provide evidence of *anything* that shows an attempt to behave badly in relation to this, the VIPs would be happy. They're looking for a true story that could be used as the basis for closer examination.
Let[']s for a moment think of the best case scenario, where we are able to show (somehow) that DNS [] communication exists between Trump and R[ussia]. How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed [I traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let's assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our "best case" scenario. [Tech Executive-I], you do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association? Let[']s all reflect upon that for a moment. Sorry folks, but unless we get combine netflow and DNS traffic collected at critical points between suspect organizations, we cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny.
The only thing that drive[s] us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in the eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?
Sure, that's why the lie's originator has been indicted with hard proof that he made it all up.
I'm skeptical. "Sussman told the FBI general counsel that he was not delivering the information on behalf of any client" is the supposed lie he's being charged with, not that the tip concerning the Dotard tower server was "all made up". Because it wasn't "all made up".
"How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing?" = there was something to observe. And I don't know why they'd need to defend against that, given that they were giving a tip for the FBI to investigate. If it was spoofed, that's for them to determine. And, as far as I know, they didn't.
Carmela@denise_yak 9/20/2021: I wish the FBI would reopen the investigation into Alfa Bank/ Trump servers. Who "cleared" the Alpha Bank/Trump Tower communications? Brian Benczkowski, Barr's DOJ head of Criminal Div. He worked for Alpha Bank before he was hired at DOJ. [end tweet]
So, Sussmann providing the tip while working for the Clinton campaign (which the FBI knew) proves it was all fiction, but former Alpha Bank employee Benczkowski (while working at DOJ) saying it didn't happen... that's fine. Nothing suspicious about that?
And, if the communications were spoofed, who spoofed them? The supposed email you quote (above) doesn't say "How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? Which we know that it is because we spoofed it".
In any case, collusion has been confirmed. The Clinton campaign knew, which is why they were interested in evidence confirming it. Even *if* Sussmann were convicted, that doesn't (somehow) prove Paul Manafort didn't collude with a Russian agent.
On or about the same day - and just five days before SUSSMANN conveyed the aforementioned allegations to the FBI - Tech Executive-I sent the white paper that SUSSMANN had been working on to Originator-I, Researcher-I, and Researcher-2. In an email, Tech Executive- I sought their views as to whether the paper's allegations would be "plausible" to "security experts," even if the allegations were not demonstrably true:
Please read as if you had no prior knowledge or involvement, and you were handed this document as a security expert (NOT a dns expert) and were asked: 'Is this plausible as an explanation?' NOT to be able to say that this is, without doubt, fact, but to merely be plausible. Do NOT spend more than a short while on this (If you spend more than an hour you have failed the assignment). Hopefully less. :) ( emphasis added).
f. On or about the same date, Researcher-I replied, stating that the white paper achieved Tech Executive-1 's objective, but noting that the paper "smartly" avoided discussing weaknesses or "holes" in the paper's hypothesis:
A DNS expert would poke several holes to this hypothesis (primarily around visibility, about which very smartly you do not talk about). That being said, I do not think even the top security (non-DNS) researchers can refute your statements. Nice!
Who spoofed the communications between the servers? Can it be proven that the communications were spoofed? So the allegations were not a slam dunk. They turned them over to the FBI for the FBI's experts to confirm or shoot down. That's the evidence you need, and it can't come from a former Alpha Bank employee. Give me a break. Just because the evidence was lacking doesn't mean they didn't believe this could be proof of collusion. Which, as I have continued to point out, HAS BEEN PROVEN.
And Sussmann was trying to convince the FBI to look into this. He's not going to put the best spin on it he can? So long as he didn't lie, I don't see what the issue is. THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT COLLUSION. That's the bottom line. Regardless of whether or not Sussmann is convicted. Which he hasn't been yet. And may never be. But then you will just say the "deep state" protected him.
LOL! That email excerpt was from earlier in the investigation. David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist (aka Researcher-2) later became convinced it was a FACT "that there are hidden communications between Trump and Alfa Bank". And (as per a NYT story) "said he believed the findings met the probable cause standard to open a criminal investigation".
aka Durham has not proven this story "all fiction". Looks to me like Durham has built a false narrative and might be guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.
Tech Executive- I sought their views as to whether the paper's allegations would be "plausible" to "security experts," even if the allegations were not demonstrably true:
Then why does his bosses use the term "plausible" instead of "probable"?
prob·a·ble /ˈpräbÉ™b(É™)l/ Learn to pronounce adjective likely to be the case or to happen. "it is probable that the economic situation will deteriorate further"
plau·si·ble /ˈplôzÉ™b(É™)l/ Learn to pronounce adjective (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable. "a plausible explanation" Similar: credible reasonable believable likely feasible probable tenable possible conceivable imaginable convincing persuasive cogent sound rational logical acceptable thinkable smooth-talking smooth-tongued smooth glib specious verisimilar colorable Opposite: unlikely improbable (of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive. "a plausible liar"
Your researcher sounds like an oil rig operator trying to justify sinking a million dollars into a dry hole to himself.
Quote: At the same time, defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Durham's indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation for the odd data they had uncovered — and still do. The Alfa Bank results "have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today..."
Defense lawyers contend the indictment presented a skewed portrait of their clients' thinking by selectively quoting from their emails. The indictment quotes August emails from Lorenzen and Antonakakis worrying that they might not know if someone had faked the DNS data. But people familiar with the matter said the indictment omitted later discussion of reasons to doubt any attempt to spoof the overall pattern could go undetected. ...
...research in the weeks that followed, omitted by the indictment, had yielded evidence that the specific subsidiary server in apparent contact with Alfa Bank had not been used to send bulk marketing emails. That further discussion, he said, changed his client's mind about whether it was a red herring [or plausible].
"The quotation of the "red herring" [and "plausible"] email is deeply misleading", he said. “The research process is iterative, and this is exactly how it should work. Their efforts culminated in the well-supported conclusions that were ultimately delivered to the FBI". [end quote]
The indictment sounds like Durham is trying to justify his being on the job. He quotes emails where researchers express doubt, but omits later emails where doubt changes to confidence. Instead of admitting he found nothing, he created a false narrative by not presenting the full picture.
btw, there WERE communications between the Dotard and Alpha bank servers. That fact has never been in dispute. btw, the researchers were also looking into "data suggesting that a YotaPhone — a Russian-made smartphone rarely seen in the United States — had been used from networks serving the White House, Trump Tower and Spectrum Health, a Michigan hospital company whose server had also interacted with the Trump server".
There is definitely something to this story. Durham has proven NOTHING to be "all fiction".
defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Durham's indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation Still can't tell the difference between plausible and probable? Wow!
And it's funny how you accept all the calls for "context" from Durham, yet demanded none from Mueller.
Something in you ego demand's that you maintain the current fictional parameters of its' "reality" by disregarding all evidence to the contrary. Oh well...
You are the one disregarding all evidence to the contrary. Re the PROVEN Manafort collusion. And the communications were also proven. And the explanation was probable. As I have pointed out (3rd time now) the researcher initially said "plausible" but later changed his mind. After doing more research and consulting with his colleagues.
You have evidence (not speculation) as to how the Manafort polling data was used? Let's hear it. Describe the chain of custody that went through Putin's hands.
Quote: The U.S. intelligence community has developed new information about Konstantin Kilimnik, whom they call a Russian spy, that leads them to believe the associate of ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort passed internal Trump campaign polling and strategy information to Russian intelligence services, two U.S. officials say. [end quote].
The polling data was used to decide where the Russian collaborators should concentrate their efforts to best assist the Dotard campaign. Beyond that I don't need to provide ANY of what you ask for.
If I hire some people to rob a bank (and they do), the authorities don't need to further prove that the thieves turned the money over to me. If the thieves ripped me off (and I never got any of the money) or I hid it real well (and the police can't find it), that doesn't mean I'm innocent (even though the police have a recording of me arranging the robbery).
25 comments:
RussiaGate TRUTHS.
I seem to recall that you pushed the Trump-Russia bank server lie pretty hard. :)
I never mentioned it. Because it isn't a lie. It remains neither proven or unproven. The frivolous and ridiculous prosecution of Michael Sussmann doesn't prove anything "fiction". Providing the FBI with a tip isn't illegal. Sussmann will defend himself in court. Unlike that other guy who took a plea. Durham investigation = bust.
As the Russian FSB's lead man in the United States, part of their frustration with Trump was that his direct lines of communication with his handlers in the Kremlin were easily exploited by his easily hacked passwords. One of the running gags at the NSA was to send him faked orders from the Vladimir Putin, which nearly turned fatal for Melania Trump when he was told to serve her Tide laundry detergent pods and tell her it was caviar.
Devin Nunes = Russian agent (effective, not official).
"Providing the FBI with a tip isn't illegal." - Lying about who you got it from is.
"I never mentioned it. Because it isn't a lie."
That's true, you only mention lies.
🤣
I never mentioned the "Trump-Russia bank server lie" because such a lie doesn't exist. It was a tip based on credible information. You're the person who only mentions lies. Or in this case, posts a video of a traitor spewing them. Interviewed by a Dotard sycophant spewing lies. Dirty tricks = Roger Stone. "They essentially accuse your opponent of what they're doing". YES!! That is what Nunes is doing. John Solomon is another liar.
"Lying about who you got it from is"... IF that happened it's a "process crime". As per your objections of prosecutions of Dotard people - process crimes are BS. If (in the unlikely event) the Durham witch hunt results in a Sussmann conviction, President Joe Biden should pardon him.
Devin (from the very end): "The thing that worries me the most? Why would they want to double the size of the IRS? Double the number of agents? They have a plan to force the banks to produce the records of every American... so the IRS can go in and ...force them to pay more taxes".
LIAR!!! republicans have deliberately underfunded the IRS so wealthy tax cheats (like Dotard) can get away without paying what they owe. republicans have gone after poorer Americans and forced them to pay more taxes.
Quote: President Joe Biden [wants] $80 billion to beef up IRS audits of high earners — a necessary move given that the water carriers for the dynasties have done their utmost to make such audits exceedingly rare.
Quote: Poor taxpayers, or those earning less than $25,000 annually, have an audit rate of 0.69% — more than 50% higher than the overall audit rate.
"Trump-Russia bank server lie" because such a lie doesn't exist. It was a tip based on credible information.
Sure, that's why the lie's originator has been indicted wit hard proof that he made it all up. LOL!
His "tasking order" from e-mail...
Being able to provide evidence of *anything* that shows an attempt
to behave badly in relation to this, the VIPs would be happy. They're
looking for a true story that could be used as the basis for closer
examination.
Let[']s for a moment think of the best case scenario, where we are able
to show (somehow) that DNS [] communication exists between Trump
and R[ussia]. How do we plan to defend against the criticism that
this is not spoofed [I traffic we are observing? There is no answer to
that. Let's assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our
"best case" scenario. [Tech Executive-I], you do realize that we will
have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very
weak association? Let[']s all reflect upon that for a moment. Sorry
folks, but unless we get combine netflow and DNS traffic collected at
critical points between suspect organizations, we cannot technically
make any claims that would fly public scrutiny.
The only thing that drive[s] us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in the eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?
Sure, that's why the lie's originator has been indicted with hard proof that he made it all up.
I'm skeptical. "Sussman told the FBI general counsel that he was not delivering the information on behalf of any client" is the supposed lie he's being charged with, not that the tip concerning the Dotard tower server was "all made up". Because it wasn't "all made up".
"How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing?" = there was something to observe. And I don't know why they'd need to defend against that, given that they were giving a tip for the FBI to investigate. If it was spoofed, that's for them to determine. And, as far as I know, they didn't.
Carmela@denise_yak 9/20/2021: I wish the FBI would reopen the investigation into Alfa Bank/ Trump servers. Who "cleared" the Alpha Bank/Trump Tower communications? Brian Benczkowski, Barr's DOJ head of Criminal Div. He worked for Alpha Bank before he was hired at DOJ. [end tweet]
So, Sussmann providing the tip while working for the Clinton campaign (which the FBI knew) proves it was all fiction, but former Alpha Bank employee Benczkowski (while working at DOJ) saying it didn't happen... that's fine. Nothing suspicious about that?
And, if the communications were spoofed, who spoofed them? The supposed email you quote (above) doesn't say "How do we plan to defend against the criticism that
this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? Which we know that it is because we spoofed it".
In any case, collusion has been confirmed. The Clinton campaign knew, which is why they were interested in evidence confirming it. Even *if* Sussmann were convicted, that doesn't (somehow) prove Paul Manafort didn't collude with a Russian agent.
On or about the same day - and just five days before SUSSMANN conveyed the aforementioned allegations to the FBI - Tech Executive-I sent the white paper that SUSSMANN had been working on to Originator-I, Researcher-I, and Researcher-2. In an email, Tech Executive- I sought their views as to whether the paper's allegations would be "plausible" to "security experts," even if the allegations were not demonstrably true:
Please read as if you had no prior knowledge or involvement, and you were handed this document as a security expert (NOT a dns expert) and were asked: 'Is this plausible as an explanation?' NOT to be able to say that this is, without doubt, fact, but to merely be plausible. Do NOT spend more than a short while on this (If you spend more than an hour you have failed the assignment). Hopefully less. :) ( emphasis added).
f. On or about the same date, Researcher-I replied, stating that the white paper achieved Tech Executive-1 's objective, but noting that the paper "smartly" avoided discussing weaknesses or "holes" in the paper's hypothesis:
A DNS expert would poke several holes to this hypothesis (primarily around visibility, about which very smartly you do not talk about). That being said, I do not think even the top security (non-DNS) researchers can refute your statements. Nice!
Who spoofed the communications between the servers? Can it be proven that the communications were spoofed? So the allegations were not a slam dunk. They turned them over to the FBI for the FBI's experts to confirm or shoot down. That's the evidence you need, and it can't come from a former Alpha Bank employee. Give me a break. Just because the evidence was lacking doesn't mean they didn't believe this could be proof of collusion. Which, as I have continued to point out, HAS BEEN PROVEN.
And Sussmann was trying to convince the FBI to look into this. He's not going to put the best spin on it he can? So long as he didn't lie, I don't see what the issue is. THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT COLLUSION. That's the bottom line. Regardless of whether or not Sussmann is convicted. Which he hasn't been yet. And may never be. But then you will just say the "deep state" protected him.
Then why was he only worried about creating a "plausible" story rather than an "actual" one? lol!
LOL! That email excerpt was from earlier in the investigation. David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist (aka Researcher-2) later became convinced it was a FACT "that there are hidden communications between Trump and Alfa Bank". And (as per a NYT story) "said he believed the findings met the probable cause standard to open a criminal investigation".
aka Durham has not proven this story "all fiction". Looks to me like Durham has built a false narrative and might be guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.
Tech Executive- I sought their views as to whether the paper's allegations would be "plausible" to "security experts," even if the allegations were not demonstrably true:
Then why does his bosses use the term "plausible" instead of "probable"?
prob·a·ble
/ˈpräbəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
likely to be the case or to happen.
"it is probable that the economic situation will deteriorate further"
plau·si·ble
/ˈplôzəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"
Similar:
credible
reasonable
believable
likely
feasible
probable
tenable
possible
conceivable
imaginable
convincing
persuasive
cogent
sound
rational
logical
acceptable
thinkable
smooth-talking
smooth-tongued
smooth
glib
specious
verisimilar
colorable
Opposite:
unlikely
improbable
(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive.
"a plausible liar"
Your researcher sounds like an oil rig operator trying to justify sinking a million dollars into a dry hole to himself.
Quote: At the same time, defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Durham's indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation for the odd data they had uncovered — and still do. The Alfa Bank results "have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today..."
Defense lawyers contend the indictment presented a skewed portrait of their clients' thinking by selectively quoting from their emails. The indictment quotes August emails from Lorenzen and Antonakakis worrying that they might not know if someone had faked the DNS data. But people familiar with the matter said the indictment omitted later discussion of reasons to doubt any attempt to spoof the overall pattern could go undetected. ...
...research in the weeks that followed, omitted by the indictment, had yielded evidence that the specific subsidiary server in apparent contact with Alfa Bank had not been used to send bulk marketing emails. That further discussion, he said, changed his client's mind about whether it was a red herring [or plausible].
"The quotation of the "red herring" [and "plausible"] email is deeply misleading", he said. “The research process is iterative, and this is exactly how it should work. Their efforts culminated in the well-supported conclusions that were ultimately delivered to the FBI". [end quote]
The indictment sounds like Durham is trying to justify his being on the job. He quotes emails where researchers express doubt, but omits later emails where doubt changes to confidence. Instead of admitting he found nothing, he created a false narrative by not presenting the full picture.
btw, there WERE communications between the Dotard and Alpha bank servers. That fact has never been in dispute. btw, the researchers were also looking into "data suggesting that a YotaPhone — a Russian-made smartphone rarely seen in the United States — had been used from networks serving the White House, Trump Tower and Spectrum Health, a Michigan hospital company whose server had also interacted with the Trump server".
There is definitely something to this story. Durham has proven NOTHING to be "all fiction".
defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Durham's indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation Still can't tell the difference between plausible and probable? Wow!
And it's funny how you accept all the calls for "context" from Durham, yet demanded none from Mueller.
Something in you ego demand's that you maintain the current fictional parameters of its' "reality" by disregarding all evidence to the contrary. Oh well...
You are the one disregarding all evidence to the contrary. Re the PROVEN Manafort collusion. And the communications were also proven. And the explanation was probable. As I have pointed out (3rd time now) the researcher initially said "plausible" but later changed his mind. After doing more research and consulting with his colleagues.
You have evidence (not speculation) as to how the Manafort polling data was used? Let's hear it. Describe the chain of custody that went through Putin's hands.
Quote: The U.S. intelligence community has developed new information about Konstantin Kilimnik, whom they call a Russian spy, that leads them to believe the associate of ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort passed internal Trump campaign polling and strategy information to Russian intelligence services, two U.S. officials say. [end quote].
The polling data was used to decide where the Russian collaborators should concentrate their efforts to best assist the Dotard campaign. Beyond that I don't need to provide ANY of what you ask for.
If I hire some people to rob a bank (and they do), the authorities don't need to further prove that the thieves turned the money over to me. If the thieves ripped me off (and I never got any of the money) or I hid it real well (and the police can't find it), that doesn't mean I'm innocent (even though the police have a recording of me arranging the robbery).
Post a Comment