That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
WTF.malchior wrote:Whoops!Too bad the message won't be received by the President-elect. He is likely to just skip the briefing.
I know you say that jokingly, but it really is starting to be the prevailing opinion. Every time I discuss some of these insane behaviors with my right-leaning friends, the answer is always "I like the fact he's doing things differently. The old ways don't work any more (whatever that means), and we need to try something different." The fact that "something different" may include the potential risk of war, cratering of the economy, etc. is of no consequence. Mainly because "stigginit", as far as I can tell.tgb wrote:Don't you people understand that voters are sick and tired of the old way of doing things in Washington, including crooked politicians avoiding Armageddon? That's why they voted for Trump. We need somebody in the White House who isn't afraid of a little fallout.
This drives me crazy as well. That seems to be the face saving answer Washington is broken...so he can't make it worse (even though he definitely *is* already) and the Supreme Court is saved. Saved from what? Mad times.Skinypupy wrote:I know you say that jokingly, but it really is starting to be the prevailing opinion. Every time I discuss some of these insane behaviors with my right-leaning friends, the answer is always "I like the fact he's doing things differently. The old ways don't work any more (whatever that means), and we need to try something different." The fact that "something different" may include the potential risk of war, cratering of the economy, etc. is of no consequence. Mainly because "stigginit", as far as I can tell.tgb wrote:Don't you people understand that voters are sick and tired of the old way of doing things in Washington, including crooked politicians avoiding Armageddon? That's why they voted for Trump. We need somebody in the White House who isn't afraid of a little fallout.
Saved from social progress. In every age, people have fought to keep things just as they are, or turn them back.malchior wrote:...the Supreme Court is saved. Saved from what?
On the one hand, hey, amazing strategic use of your businesses to make yourself richer. I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone in his position to do anything differently. On the other hand, holy shit, five weeks from now this guy is going to be President of the United States.That total includes payments to The Trump Corporation, The Trump Security, Trump Cafe, Trump Grill, Trump Hotel, Doral Golf Resort, Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing, LLC, The Mar a Lago Club LLC, Trump Plaza LLC, Trump International Golf Club, Trump National Golf Club, Trump Old Post Office LLC, Trump Park Avenue LLC, Trump International Hotel, Trump Restaurants, Trump SoHo, Trump Tower, TAG Air, Inc., Trump Virginia Acquisitions, LLC, Trump CPS LLC and Trump ICE LLC.
...
And it is a phenomenon unique to The Donald—no other presidential candidate in American history spent so much money at their own hotels, apartment buildings, restaurants, golf courses and airlines.
Not that they’ve had the option.
By law, candidates can’t profit from their campaigns—unless the campaign was paying fair market value for the goods and services purchased. Complicating matters is the fact that Trump funneled quite a bit—though not as much as he claimed—of his own money into his coffers. The result was unprecedented: a candidate putting money into his campaign, then paying his business, then potentially making a profit back.
Hey at least the integrity of the Supreme Court has been preserved and that woman isn't in office and something about rolling back the sharia laws passed by that Kenyan and go coal! Need I go on?Smoove_B wrote:Trump campaign paid $11 million+ to Trump businesses:On the one hand, hey, amazing strategic use of your businesses to make yourself richer. I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone in his position to do anything differently. On the other hand, holy shit, five weeks from now this guy is going to be President of the United States.That total includes payments to The Trump Corporation, The Trump Security, Trump Cafe, Trump Grill, Trump Hotel, Doral Golf Resort, Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing, LLC, The Mar a Lago Club LLC, Trump Plaza LLC, Trump International Golf Club, Trump National Golf Club, Trump Old Post Office LLC, Trump Park Avenue LLC, Trump International Hotel, Trump Restaurants, Trump SoHo, Trump Tower, TAG Air, Inc., Trump Virginia Acquisitions, LLC, Trump CPS LLC and Trump ICE LLC.
...
And it is a phenomenon unique to The Donald—no other presidential candidate in American history spent so much money at their own hotels, apartment buildings, restaurants, golf courses and airlines.
Not that they’ve had the option.
By law, candidates can’t profit from their campaigns—unless the campaign was paying fair market value for the goods and services purchased. Complicating matters is the fact that Trump funneled quite a bit—though not as much as he claimed—of his own money into his coffers. The result was unprecedented: a candidate putting money into his campaign, then paying his business, then potentially making a profit back.
You see where this is going?Grifman wrote:Duh, you are assuming what you to prove - there's no evidence her server was hacked.Rip wrote:It does beg the question of why they are certain the Russians hacked the DNC but have no idea who hacked Clinton's server?!?
Irrelevant. I'm not talking about an purported hacking of the RNC. I'm talking about Clinton's email server. There's no evidence it was hacked, period. None of what you have posted has provided any evidence that it was hacked. Deal with the issue I'm discussing and don't try dragging in all this other stuff that I'm NOT discussing.Rip wrote:You see where this is going?Grifman wrote:Duh, you are assuming what you to prove - there's no evidence her server was hacked.Rip wrote:It does beg the question of why they are certain the Russians hacked the DNC but have no idea who hacked Clinton's server?!?
DNC server: Everyone knows it was hacked. Some assume it was by Russians but lack credible intel proving that.
Clinton server: Very likely hacked but because it lacked even the most basic network monitoring there is no way of knowing for sure and certainly no way of knowing who if it was.
RNC server: Well monitored and fully audited by the FBI who determined there was no breach.
None of this fits a narrative of Russians hacking it all and picking to just hand DNC e-mails to wikileaks. The only reason it is even being panned is because there are so many anti-Trump people in denial that it is easy to sell them on pretty much any crazy theory.
You also contradict yourself here. You say that the the Clinton server was hacked but there's no way of knowing for sure, and now way of knowing who it was, but then you ask why they don't know who hacked it? You can't even keep your own arguments straight.Rip wrote:Clinton server: Very likely hacked but because it lacked even the most basic network monitoring there is no way of knowing for sure and certainly no way of knowing who if it was.Grifman wrote:Duh, you are assuming what you to prove - there's no evidence her server was hacked.Rip wrote:It does beg the question of why they are certain the Russians hacked the DNC but have no idea who hacked Clinton's server?!?
If you drill down, there is plenty of publicly released evidence:The US government has officially blamed Russia for cyber hacks exposing 19,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) servers.
While Russia was previously named by the FBI and cybersecurity experts, this is the first time the White House has explicitly attributed the attack to Russia, saying it was trying to interfere with the US election.
Now, per the Intercept, there is definitely some jankiness about the CIA anonymous quotes and other atributions, but there isn't much doubt that Russia was behind the DNC hack, and hasn't been for months.Here's why the experts are so confident the Russians did it:
GEOGRAPHY: At least one of the hacker groups attacking the DNC appeared to cease operations on Russian holidays, and its work hours aligned with a Russian time zone, cybersecurity company FireEye concluded in a report.
LANGUAGE: The hackers also left an obvious digital fingerprint, one cybersecurity expert said, perhaps on purpose: a signature in Russia's Cyrillic alphabet.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE: After a different batch of hacked Democratic emails was released last month, a wide spectrum of cyber-security experts concluded that it was the work of Russian intelligence agencies through previously known proxy groups known as COZY BEAR or APT 29, and FANCY BEAR or APT 28. "We've had lots of experience with both of these actors … and know them well," according to the DNC's own contract cybersecurity firm, Crowdstrike, which blogged that one of the two groups had already gained illegal access to the White House, State Department and even the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff...
Needless to say, Democrats — still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves — immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory...
Being hidden with all the evidence of Russia swaying the election I suppose.Grifman wrote:Irrelevant. I'm not talking about an purported hacking of the RNC. I'm talking about Clinton's email server. There's no evidence it was hacked, period. None of what you have posted has provided any evidence that it was hacked. Deal with the issue I'm discussing and don't try dragging in all this other stuff that I'm NOT discussing.Rip wrote:You see where this is going?Grifman wrote:Duh, you are assuming what you to prove - there's no evidence her server was hacked.Rip wrote:It does beg the question of why they are certain the Russians hacked the DNC but have no idea who hacked Clinton's server?!?
DNC server: Everyone knows it was hacked. Some assume it was by Russians but lack credible intel proving that.
Clinton server: Very likely hacked but because it lacked even the most basic network monitoring there is no way of knowing for sure and certainly no way of knowing who if it was.
RNC server: Well monitored and fully audited by the FBI who determined there was no breach.
None of this fits a narrative of Russians hacking it all and picking to just hand DNC e-mails to wikileaks. The only reason it is even being panned is because there are so many anti-Trump people in denial that it is easy to sell them on pretty much any crazy theory.
You talk in another thread about wanting "evidence". So where's the evidence here?
Trump supporters: There's no such thing as "facts" anymore. Opinions are all we need to make judgements.Rip wrote:Being hidden with all the evidence of Russia swaying the election I suppose.Grifman wrote:You talk in another thread about wanting "evidence". So where's the evidence here?
I'm saying that if they don't know that how is it they "know" the Russians hacked the RNC? Surely if the Russians hacked a well secured server that the FBI looked at and said wasn't hacked they could have hacked Clintons server that had no protection and the FBI after examining it said they not only weren't sure it hadn't been hacked, it was highly likely it was, just no way of knowing who. Were the Russians that incompetent? Did they not want into Clinton's server?Grifman wrote:You also contradict yourself here. You say that the the Clinton server was hacked but there's no way of knowing for sure, and now way of knowing who it was, but then you ask why they don't know who hacked it? You can't even keep your own arguments straight.Rip wrote:Clinton server: Very likely hacked but because it lacked even the most basic network monitoring there is no way of knowing for sure and certainly no way of knowing who if it was.Grifman wrote:Duh, you are assuming what you to prove - there's no evidence her server was hacked.Rip wrote:It does beg the question of why they are certain the Russians hacked the DNC but have no idea who hacked Clinton's server?!?
I don't know that the RNC was hacked. All I have heard is unconfirmed reports. I'm not assuming that it was hacked. Your entire argument so far is based upon an unconfirmed report that the RNC was hacked. Where's the evidence that you say you want that the RNC was hacked?Rip wrote:I'm saying that if they don't know that how is it they "know" the Russians hacked the RNC?
How would they know how to find her server? How would they know she was using a private server? Maybe you can answer these questions?Surely if the Russians hacked a well secured server that the FBI looked at and said wasn't hacked they could have hacked Clintons server that had no protection and the FBI after examining it said they not only weren't sure it hadn't been hacked, it was highly likely it was, just no way of knowing who. Were the Russians that incompetent? Did they not want into Clinton's server?
We'll probably never know with 100% certainty but there are good indicators that her server wasn't hacked (at least meaningfully). 1) Absolutely 0 emails were leaked from that system 2) there were no hints that any operations were compromised - despite the FBI going through it with a fine-toothed comb.Paingod wrote:Anonymity is great security in and of itself. Unless they knew exactly that she had her own server (and even the US goverment didn't until it was discovered), and where it was located, what are the actual odds that the Ruskies knew about it? Even poor security is effective when no one's knocking on the door. Lucky, yes. Good thinking, no. Justified in assuming the Russians hacked it? Not at all.
Anonymity (or Security through obscurity) can be a component of security, but it's not "great security in and of itself". Would you be fine sending sensitive information (top secret US government documents) in plain text, just as long as it's hidden in lots of other documents and with nothing to link it to you personally?Paingod wrote:Anonymity is great security in and of itself. Unless they knew exactly that she had her own server (and even the US goverment didn't until it was discovered), and where it was located, what are the actual odds that the Ruskies knew about it?
Everything that I've read and heard (except from trump or Conway ) over the past few days, is that both the FBI and CIA know the Russians were involved in hacking the DNC. The CIA, allegedly, believes it to be a concerted effort to influence the election towards the election.Rip wrote:Which gets down to the known facts which is all I am saying. The known facts are.
DNC server was hacked. By who is unknown but whoever did passed that info to wikileaks.
Clintons server could have been hacked but security and protocol were so weak no one has any idea. But if it was no one has/had leaked anything from it publicly.
RNC server probably wasn't based on an FBI inspection, but as with any server there is a very small possibility.
Anything beyond that is conjecture or at best educated guessing.
That is false. Both the CIA and FBI have concluded the Russian govt was behind the hacks.Rip wrote:Which gets down to the known facts which is all I am saying. The known facts are.
DNC server was hacked. By who is unknown but whoever did passed that info to wikileaks.
That is true.Clintons server could have been hacked but security and protocol were so weak no one has any idea. But if it was no one has/had leaked anything from it publicly.
This is where the news was confusing but has now been clarified. The RNC was not hacked but a third party vendor supporting the RNC, along with some conservative political types, were hacked by the Russians.RNC server probably wasn't based on an FBI inspection, but as with any server there is a very small possibility.
Conflicts of interest are last week. He's canceling the presser because the questions will all be about Russia.Zarathud wrote:Trump can't even follow through on his planned press conference.
The President-elect never had a plan to put into place to deal with his business conflicts. Bad.
At least China is forgotten...isn't it?Holman wrote:Conflicts of interest are last week. He's canceling the presser because the questions will all be about Russia.Zarathud wrote:Trump can't even follow through on his planned press conference.
The President-elect never had a plan to put into place to deal with his business conflicts. Bad.
Combustible Lemur wrote:Everything that I've read and heard (except from trump or Conway ) over the past few days, is that both the FBI and CIA know the Russians were involved in hacking the DNC. The CIA, allegedly, believes it to be a concerted effort to influence the election towards the election.Rip wrote:Which gets down to the known facts which is all I am saying. The known facts are.
DNC server was hacked. By who is unknown but whoever did passed that info to wikileaks.
Clintons server could have been hacked but security and protocol were so weak no one has any idea. But if it was no one has/had leaked anything from it publicly.
RNC server probably wasn't based on an FBI inspection, but as with any server there is a very small possibility.
Anything beyond that is conjecture or at best educated guessing.
They are certain enough, that otherwise trump apologists, McConneLl, Mcain, and other top tier republicans are relatively abandoning Trump = RNC.
Edit: thus far (NYT, WAPO, CNN, HUFFPO, VARIOUS QUOTES,), the only people denying Russian involvement are Trump's immediate team, and Priebus. And much of what they are saying is being directly refuted by intelligence, and security experts.
So are you suggesting after all those sources that I should beleive Trump over legit journalistic sources, industry experts, Mconnell, and potentially the CIA, and FBI?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12 ... imony.htmlThe Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says a reported CIA assessment that Russian government actors interfered in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win conflicts with the mid-November public testimony from the nation’s intelligence chief, according to a new letter obtained by Fox News.
In a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, "On November 17, 2016 you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC (Intelligence Community) lacked strong evidence connecting Russian government Cyber-attacks and Wikileaks disclosures."
In response to a question from ranking Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Clapper had said, “As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that.”
The Nunes letter continued, “According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position…I was dismayed that we did not learn earlier, from you directly about the reported conflicting assessments and the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.”
Nunes is requesting a briefing from the CIA and FBI on the current assessment of alleged Russian involvement related to the U.S. election no later than Dec. 16.
On the one hand, Eichenwald is fighting the good fight. On the other hand, his constant abuse of "2" and "4" makes me want to punch him in the yarbles.malchior wrote:Or....
It's 139 characters. I'm no fan of twitter, but if you're going to use it, you're going to see this.Max Peck wrote:On the one hand, Eichenwald is fighting the good fight. On the other hand, his constant abuse of "2" and "4" makes me want to punch him in the yarbles.malchior wrote:Or....
Just read the article twice. It doesn't contradict anuthing I said. It's been reported that the CIA now has strong belief (one presumes with evidence) that Russia was directly involved. Direct physical evidence is elusive or non existent that they have a direct connection between the "party" actors and t he operators, but the broad evidence suggests it. There is no need to open new investigations because both the CIA and FBI have ongoing inveatigations. It's bad enough, at least optically that MConnell and other high renting Republicans are freaked out enough to say thinks that could potentially look bad for the new administration and ultimately for Republicans. AND this is coming from FOX. Who are as likely to say nothing to see here as MSNBC would be to say that this is direct evidence Trump kills puppies.Rip wrote:Combustible Lemur wrote:Everything that I've read and heard (except from trump or Conway ) over the past few days, is that both the FBI and CIA know the Russians were involved in hacking the DNC. The CIA, allegedly, believes it to be a concerted effort to influence the election towards the election.Rip wrote:Which gets down to the known facts which is all I am saying. The known facts are.
DNC server was hacked. By who is unknown but whoever did passed that info to wikileaks.
Clintons server could have been hacked but security and protocol were so weak no one has any idea. But if it was no one has/had leaked anything from it publicly.
RNC server probably wasn't based on an FBI inspection, but as with any server there is a very small possibility.
Anything beyond that is conjecture or at best educated guessing.
They are certain enough, that otherwise trump apologists, McConneLl, Mcain, and other top tier republicans are relatively abandoning Trump = RNC.
Edit: thus far (NYT, WAPO, CNN, HUFFPO, VARIOUS QUOTES,), the only people denying Russian involvement are Trump's immediate team, and Priebus. And much of what they are saying is being directly refuted by intelligence, and security experts.
So are you suggesting after all those sources that I should beleive Trump over legit journalistic sources, industry experts, Mconnell, and potentially the CIA, and FBI?http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12 ... imony.htmlThe Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says a reported CIA assessment that Russian government actors interfered in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win conflicts with the mid-November public testimony from the nation’s intelligence chief, according to a new letter obtained by Fox News.
In a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, "On November 17, 2016 you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC (Intelligence Community) lacked strong evidence connecting Russian government Cyber-attacks and Wikileaks disclosures."
In response to a question from ranking Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Clapper had said, “As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that.”
The Nunes letter continued, “According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position…I was dismayed that we did not learn earlier, from you directly about the reported conflicting assessments and the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.”
Nunes is requesting a briefing from the CIA and FBI on the current assessment of alleged Russian involvement related to the U.S. election no later than Dec. 16.
he's always doing this, and it always comes off as forced. see whenever he attempts 'impersonation' or satire of internetspeakMax Peck wrote:True dat, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I think it annoys me with Eichenwald, in particular, because it comes across (to me) as a deliberate affectation rather than a natural style. It doesn't fit well with capitalization, punctuation, actual sentence structure and otherwise fluent command of the English language.