The amount of stupidity in that video is mind-boggling. At best it misconstrues the separation of powers concepts.drcrinum said:Quote:
BREAKING: DOJ Crooks Refuse Request to Hand Over Transcripts from FISA Court Hearings on Carter Page (VIDEO)
My take: The DOJ doesn't want to give anything to Congress where it will end up being leaked to the media. Stall until the OIG Report is released and then start filing indictments.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,543,970 Views |
49287 Replies |
Last: 4 days ago by aggiehawg
In what way?Quote:
The amount of stupidity in that video is mind-boggling. At best it misconstrues the separation of powers concepts.
What's stupid is sitting idly by while our government is hijacked by unethical people who are doing their masters' bidding and subverting the rule of law. And even more stupid is defending it because it's your team.
Doubt he/she will come back and answer.
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
Wednesday night, I sat down to drinks with Dmitri Alperovitz, the CTO and Founder of CrowdStrike. Also, huge DNC donor and man behind the curtain of the Hilary Clinton Email server investigation.
Dmitri and I didn't know each other and had never met before. I got a message via LinkedIn from a CS employee a few weeks ago mentioning they would be in town and that Dmitri had asked if I would be free for a drink. While he requested the meeting, and a few of you knew I was going to it, I didn't know what the context was going to be until I got there. They suggested we meet at the lobby bar of a local hotel where there were having a company meeting.
When the meeting was originally requested, I was an InfoSec Exec with Bank of America and someone(we'll call Tom) I had done business with in the past had joined CS and brokered the conversation. I have recently resigned from BofA but they wanted to keep the discussion.
When I got there, Dmitri, Tom and a large group of folks were talking near the bar. They quickly asked if we could move literally to area furthest away from the bar and everyone else to talk. We went over, sat down, and the talk lasted about 30 minutes with Dmitri wanting to know mostly about my background in technology and infosec. Tom didn't say much but would occasionally interject if something relevant came up. I was pretty vague and nothing overly weird was asked or mentioned. He did want to know what I did for BofA, some about where I was going and what I was going to do there. He played the "Do you know" game a little bit but it was obvious that we had no common social circles.
I asked a few questions about the services they provide beyond their cloud product( i.e. professional services) and he quickly changed the subject. Shortly thereafter, he just kinda got up, excused himself and left for a dinner engagement(with no in particular). Tom started a product pitch and politely I told him I needed to go get my kids and headed out.
End of meeting.
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
If this how the DNC operates, it's pretty sad
Maybe I blew this all out of proportion, but again the whole thing seemed really odd then and still seems really odd today.
End of Story...
Dmitri and I didn't know each other and had never met before. I got a message via LinkedIn from a CS employee a few weeks ago mentioning they would be in town and that Dmitri had asked if I would be free for a drink. While he requested the meeting, and a few of you knew I was going to it, I didn't know what the context was going to be until I got there. They suggested we meet at the lobby bar of a local hotel where there were having a company meeting.
When the meeting was originally requested, I was an InfoSec Exec with Bank of America and someone(we'll call Tom) I had done business with in the past had joined CS and brokered the conversation. I have recently resigned from BofA but they wanted to keep the discussion.
When I got there, Dmitri, Tom and a large group of folks were talking near the bar. They quickly asked if we could move literally to area furthest away from the bar and everyone else to talk. We went over, sat down, and the talk lasted about 30 minutes with Dmitri wanting to know mostly about my background in technology and infosec. Tom didn't say much but would occasionally interject if something relevant came up. I was pretty vague and nothing overly weird was asked or mentioned. He did want to know what I did for BofA, some about where I was going and what I was going to do there. He played the "Do you know" game a little bit but it was obvious that we had no common social circles.
I asked a few questions about the services they provide beyond their cloud product( i.e. professional services) and he quickly changed the subject. Shortly thereafter, he just kinda got up, excused himself and left for a dinner engagement(with no in particular). Tom started a product pitch and politely I told him I needed to go get my kids and headed out.
End of meeting.
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
If this how the DNC operates, it's pretty sad
Maybe I blew this all out of proportion, but again the whole thing seemed really odd then and still seems really odd today.
End of Story...
So why was the FBI so confident of their ability to accurately conduct a forensic examination of the DNC servers??Quote:
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
Here's what I don't understand, and it's the main reason to not attempt to have a "rational" discussion with leftys--well, most of them.akm91 said:
Doubt he/she will come back and answer.
There are certain facts, and I mean rock solid facts, from all of Obama's non-scandal scandals, that are conveniently glossed over. Hannity has gotten under my skin forever when it comes to supporting the conservative cause. He's hyperbolic, and regularly jumps to conclusions. Until this thread in December of '17, I didn't ever watch him.
Whether it's FISA abuse, Uranium 1, etc., I'll be happy to discuss the "mind-boggling stupidity in that video", but only with the acceptance of either what's already been disclosed as fact, or the astounding circumstantial evidence that's being investigated.
Otherwise, it's a useless endeavor, bordering on "nanny nanny boo boo" and "I know I am, but what are you"!
no clueaggiehawg said:So why was the FBI so confident of their ability to accurately conduct a forensic examination of the DNC servers??Quote:
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
How would they know you were **** talking about them?Quote:
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
What was the name of the company that contracted to do the Obamacare website?Deats said:no clueaggiehawg said:So why was the FBI so confident of their ability to accurately conduct a forensic examination of the DNC servers??Quote:
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
That's what this sounds like.
Regarding the part bolded above, am curious how were you able to deduce that?Deats said:
Wednesday night, I sat down to drinks with Dmitri Alperovitz, the CTO and Founder of CrowdStrike. Also, huge DNC donor and man behind the curtain of the Hilary Clinton Email server investigation.
Dmitri and I didn't know each other and had never met before. I got a message via LinkedIn from a CS employee a few weeks ago mentioning they would be in town and that Dmitri had asked if I would be free for a drink. While he requested the meeting, and a few of you knew I was going to it, I didn't know what the context was going to be until I got there. They suggested we meet at the lobby bar of a local hotel where there were having a company meeting.
When the meeting was originally requested, I was an InfoSec Exec with Bank of America and someone(we'll call Tom) I had done business with in the past had joined CS and brokered the conversation. I have recently resigned from BofA but they wanted to keep the discussion.
When I got there, Dmitri, Tom and a large group of folks were talking near the bar. They quickly asked if we could move literally to area furthest away from the bar and everyone else to talk. We went over, sat down, and the talk lasted about 30 minutes with Dmitri wanting to know mostly about my background in technology and infosec. Tom didn't say much but would occasionally interject if something relevant came up. I was pretty vague and nothing overly weird was asked or mentioned. He did want to know what I did for BofA, some about where I was going and what I was going to do there. He played the "Do you know" game a little bit but it was obvious that we had no common social circles.
I asked a few questions about the services they provide beyond their cloud product( i.e. professional services) and he quickly changed the subject. Shortly thereafter, he just kinda got up, excused himself and left for a dinner engagement(with no in particular). Tom started a product pitch and politely I told him I needed to go get my kids and headed out.
End of meeting.
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
If this how the DNC operates, it's pretty sad
Maybe I blew this all out of proportion, but again the whole thing seemed really odd then and still seems really odd today.
End of Story...
Serco, GCI, and Booz Allen Hamilton (Snowden's employer.)fasthorses05 said:What was the name of the company that contracted to do the Obamacare website?Deats said:no clueaggiehawg said:So why was the FBI so confident of their ability to accurately conduct a forensic examination of the DNC servers??Quote:
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
That's what this sounds like.
LINK
Look who showed up?etcetera said:
Regarding the part bolded above, am curious how were you able to deduce that?
I've been looking at their product and company for 5 years and talking to Dmitri sealed the deal for me.
CGI is the one that screwed it up (and just about everything else they touch).
My guess is they didn't want to look at it or they got enough "fluff" from CS about what they did to the servers and counted it as a consulting gig.
Either way it was done poorly or incompetently by one or both parties.
Either way it was done poorly or incompetently by one or both parties.
Like everything else obama foisted upon America, it was a sham. They didn't want Americans to know the truth.aggiehawg said:So why was the FBI so confident of their ability to accurately conduct a forensic examination of the DNC servers??Quote:
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
Here's a couple of things that stick in my head. The DNC and the DNCC server was maintained by the Awan brothers, and for all we know, the Awan brothers had possession of the servers, that's really an unknown because no one ever saw them. With all the crap the Awan's were involved in, there was no way those servers ever see the light of day.aggiehawg said:So why was the FBI so confident of their ability to accurately conduct a forensic examination of the DNC servers??Quote:
My takeaways:
In no way was CS prepared to handle the DNC hack, DNC should have called Mandiant
Crowdstrike is in that little network of vendors and had a history of working with the bureau in the past and was an easy sell to the FBI. The level of their expertise, or what all they could actually handle I will leave to the experts to decide, but the fact that they were taken like the gold standard by the FBI with no real pushback or caveat that the FBI had never seen the servers until Comey was put under oath and forced to tell when asked directly. The fact they never volunteered the fact that they never physically examined the servers when they signed off on that BS IC report that was written in Dec 2016 and made public in Jan 2017. The one that made hay in the media about 17 agencies which turned out to be complete crap. I couldn't find anywhere in that consensus report that they said they never actually forensically examined the servers at all. That is a huge red flag
My guess is the FBI was in the tank for Hillary, even those that claim to be republicans because she was a sure thing to win this. So they went with what her camp was telling them, Crowdstrike's name was attached to give what they were saying some level of credibility, in the same way Steel's name was attached to the satire written by Blumenthal and company to give it some sort of level of credibility. It's the stereotypical Clinton playbook pf layering up the horse crap as thick as they possibly can.
FBI/DOJ was scrambling for life jackets and life boats when Trump won the election, and now the wheels are coming off that wagon and it's rolling down hill loaded and on fire.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
akm91 said:How would they know you were **** talking about them?Quote:
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
Did you get any impression they knew your internet history/personal beliefs or was all their info about you thru Tom?
What makes you say they weren't capable of inspecting Hillary's server?
What's truly frightening is we're witnessing the Clinton smear machine combined with the community organizer and his Chicago tactics aimed at Trump for over a year (with an overly complicit press to amp up the volume).Quote:
It's the stereotypical Clinton playbook pf layering up the horse crap as thick as they possibly can.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-28%20CEG%20to%20State%20+DHS%20(Deripaska%20visa%20records).pdf
Grassley is after Deripaska again, this time requesting all visa records/info on him from the State Department & Department of Homeland Security. The relevant historical significance is displayed on the letter's first page view-able in the tweet.
Check out google alerts.akm91 said:How would they know you were **** talking about them?Quote:
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
And there aren't many "Deats" in infosec.
Tom only knew me from when I bought another product from his previous company.Bobcat06 said:akm91 said:How would they know you were **** talking about them?Quote:
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
Did you get any impression they knew your internet history/personal beliefs or was all their info about you thru Tom?
What makes you say they weren't capable of inspecting Hillary's server?
We had spoken 3-4 times by phone.
Got it. That makes more sense.Deats said:Check out google alerts.akm91 said:How would they know you were **** talking about them?Quote:
I don't know if this was a get know a possible customer meeting or a meet a guy **** talking us meeting
And there aren't many "Deats" in infosec.
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
You'll be pretty confident you won't find something you don't want to find if you let someone who is not competent look for you.
I think this will be applicable to their oline:
Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. It's perfect because it mentions Hand and their previous oline coach, who is known for filling things up with ****.
Oops wrong thread.
Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. It's perfect because it mentions Hand and their previous oline coach, who is known for filling things up with ****.
Oops wrong thread.
how the hell did you mess that one up so badly?friscodick said:
I think this will be applicable to their oline:
Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. It's perfect because it mentions Hand and their previous oline coach, who is known for filling things up with ****.
friscodick said:
I think this will be applicable to their oline:
Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. It's perfect because it mentions Hand and their previous oline coach, who is known for filling things up with ****.
Take it to the tears thread.
But does he have ties to the steel industry?
Oh btw, Russia, Russia, Russia!
Oh btw, Russia, Russia, Russia!
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
Alexander Abramov does.akm91 said:
But does he have ties to the steel industry?
The question is does Abramov have ties to Clinton Foundation?
The evidence is piling up on my side.hbtheduce said:
I know hawg believes that Mueller is working against Trump. But there is still the possibility that he is white hat. None of his moves have jeopardized Trump while still building a case/investigating.
The media has borderline anointed the guy. He is the messiah to lead them to impeachment. It would be Armageddon in DC if he started dropping indictments against the Podesta wing of the scandal.
Read the whole thingQuote:
The Washington Post reports that Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump's "private comments and state of mind" during the period when he issued a series of tweets belittling Attorney General Jeff Sessions. According to the Post, the thrust of Mueller's inquiry is to determine whether the president's goal was to oust Sessions in order to pick a replacement who would exercise control over Mueller's investigation.
If this story is true, it demonstrates why the nation needs someone in the Justice Department to exercise control over Mueller's investigation. It also confirms the suspicion that Mueller is either nuts, desperate to get Trump, or both.
aggiehawg said:The evidence is piling up on my side.hbtheduce said:
I know hawg believes that Mueller is working against Trump. But there is still the possibility that he is white hat. None of his moves have jeopardized Trump while still building a case/investigating.
The media has borderline anointed the guy. He is the messiah to lead them to impeachment. It would be Armageddon in DC if he started dropping indictments against the Podesta wing of the scandal.Read the whole thingQuote:
The Washington Post reports that Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump's "private comments and state of mind" during the period when he issued a series of tweets belittling Attorney General Jeff Sessions. According to the Post, the thrust of Mueller's inquiry is to determine whether the president's goal was to oust Sessions in order to pick a replacement who would exercise control over Mueller's investigation.
If this story is true, it demonstrates why the nation needs someone in the Justice Department to exercise control over Mueller's investigation. It also confirms the suspicion that Mueller is either nuts, desperate to get Trump, or both.
"according to people familiar with the matter", kinda sounds like wishful thinking from the Washington Post. I don't have enough info to claim to know Mueller's intentions.
Sometimes I think you are right, other times I fall back to thinking he is pro-Trump or at least Trump neutral.
Either way thank you for the updates and providing your insight.
FTR, I pray you are correct and I am wrong. My spidey senses are telling me otherwise, however.Quote:
Sometimes I think you are right, other times I fall back to thinking he is pro-Trump or at least Trump neutral.
Either way thank you for the updates and providing your insight.
For instance, Mueller was under no obligation to go after Manafort for financial crimes committed years before the Trump campaign existed. He could have simply handed that back off to DOJ for prosecution. But had he done that, he would have lost his leverage over Manafort, a witness he is keen on intimidating and rattling his saber at all of the time. Why? Sure, Manafort is a sleazy guy. Wanting to nail a sleazy guy is attractive for a veteran prosecutor. But that's not what was Mueller was hired to do.
In a way, if Mueller is a white hat and part of some elaborate scheme to drum up the credibility to later on pronounce Trump innocent, isn't that the same as Comey and Lynch predetermining Hillary's skating over the server issue? Has a bad smell to it.
I trust the lawyers at Powerline blog. Their analysis is sound, even-measured and based in the law. When even they think Mueller is off his rocker, or reaching, I take note. Ditto for NRO's Andrew McCarthy. (Who also gets my vote for being named a Special Counsel, if Gowdy won't serve.)
Despite the media hoopla, this isn't a Constitutional crisis, not by a long shot (hope I'm still allowed to use that vernacular without losing my 2nd Amendment rights). That being said, Sessions and Wray need to step it up a little and let Grassley and Nunes do their work, Constitutionally granted oversight over the Executive branch.
Put yourself in Mueller's shoes.
If you are being hired to investigate Russian collusion by Trump and his associates, do you hire all Democratic attorneys to help you. You have to know that any indictments against Trump and his administration will be viewed as a political witch hunt. Are you willing to risk ripping the country apart, worse than it already is?
However, if you are being informed that there are numerous felonies committed by Obama, Hillary, and their associates, wouldn't it be perceived more fairly if Democratic lawyers indicted other Democrats? If the evidence can convince biased attorneys, then it should convince the American people.
Or it could be that Mueller is all about CYA for himself and his friends on the 7th floor. If he is doing that, what did he meet with Trump for? Is Rosenstein a white hat or a black hat? Rosenstein must have known about the FISA abuse, the unmasking, and the leaking when he hired Mueller.
If you are being hired to investigate Russian collusion by Trump and his associates, do you hire all Democratic attorneys to help you. You have to know that any indictments against Trump and his administration will be viewed as a political witch hunt. Are you willing to risk ripping the country apart, worse than it already is?
However, if you are being informed that there are numerous felonies committed by Obama, Hillary, and their associates, wouldn't it be perceived more fairly if Democratic lawyers indicted other Democrats? If the evidence can convince biased attorneys, then it should convince the American people.
Or it could be that Mueller is all about CYA for himself and his friends on the 7th floor. If he is doing that, what did he meet with Trump for? Is Rosenstein a white hat or a black hat? Rosenstein must have known about the FISA abuse, the unmasking, and the leaking when he hired Mueller.
I have put myself in Mueller's shoes (doubt he wears pumps, however.) Dem lawyers taking a pay cut to be on Mueller's team would bail at the first inkling that any Obama official was a target. Their livelihood depends on currying favor with one side of the political dynamic inside the Beltway and it ain't the law and order side.VaultingChemist said:
Put yourself in Mueller's shoes.
If you are being hired to investigate Russian collusion by Trump and his associates, do you hire all Democratic attorneys to help you. You have to know that any indictments against Trump and his administration will be viewed as a political witch hunt. Are you willing to risk ripping the country apart, worse than it already is?
However, if you are being informed that there are numerous felonies committed by Obama, Hillary, and their associates, wouldn't it be perceived more fairly if Democratic lawyers indicted other Democrats? If the evidence can convince biased attorneys, then it should convince the American people.
Or it could be that Mueller is all about CYA for himself and his friends on the 7th floor. If he is doing that, what did he meet with Trump for? Is Rosenstein a white hat or a black hat? Rosenstein must have known about the FISA abuse, the unmasking, and the leaking when he hired Mueller.
Featured Stories
See All
22:40
3h ago
1.2k
9:38
8h ago
1.5k
Around CFB: Predicting the top 12 teams in initial CFP rankings
by Olin Buchanan
CoppellAg2009
Sark says Texas hosting "arguably the best looking team in SEC"
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
56