Durham says CIA found data alleging Trump-Russia connection not 'technically plausible,' was 'user c

No, they haven't. In fact, very few people (including you) have read it.

You know how I can tell? Your posts are not remotely on point WRT to the Report's content.

 

He did? Cite, please.

 

Again, from your prospective which no one cares about. The only thing that matters in this world is results, not hopeful wishes, not what you believe the world to be. It's a very black and grey place with very little color in the world. If Democrats started thinking with actual application instead of their feels, things would be easier for both sides to get things done. Instead, the Democrats persist in that which isn't happening.

 

"Billing records" are NOT the same is time records.

 

"Perspective".

I'm far from a black and white guy. And the MUeller Report is exceptionally damning for the Bonespurs campaign. Please read it.

 

Already read it, no one acted on the conspiracy theory, no one is ever going to act on the conspiracy theory and you're going to wonder that forever. And 99% of people aren't going to care at some point. You're like those who wonder about the grossy knoll shooter, long after it's over.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/trump-talks-threatening-putin-mocking-merkel-at-mar-a-lago/

“There are other stories making the rounds, too, and they are even more provocative. One has it that Trump — noting that Putin seized land from Georgia when George W. Bush was president and seized the Crimean peninsula when Barack Obama was president — warned Putin against a land grab on his watch.

“If you move against Ukraine while I’m president,” Trump is said to have told the Russian leader, “I will hit Moscow.”

Putin reportedly scoffed, “No way,” leading Trump to say, “All those beautiful golden turrets will be blown up.”

I freaking love that guy as president lol

 

Hahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh and reality rewrite.

 

I didn’t rewrite anything?

And I love the laugh but Putin stayed his ass where he was at during Trumps presidency didnt he?

 

Again, there is no direct proof. Mueller said in his report that he proved Manafort gave the Russians the campaigns polling data, and we know the Russians helped the Trump campaign via the social media. What we KNOW, is that Manafort shared polling data with the Russian government, and the Russian government did help the Trump campaign via social media

 

Coordination but why was it so welcomed??!!!

 

Yes he did. Putin understood that he could not mess with Trump and did not. Trump punished him and Russia for its past meddling in our internal affairs

 

I would think a fairminded person would be more honest.
What you said is not accurate.
You are intentionally skewing the facts about the Trump tower meeting. https://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/5366...s-about-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-annotated
Also, you're statement about Crowdstrike is bs. Read this (from Crowdstrike): https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

If you have any data to dispute these, please post links for verification. So far, you have been proven untrustworthy for the truth, so I can't just take your word for it.
Unless you don't care, and that's entirely possible. In that case, have a nice life!

 

For the upteenth time, no one has challenged that Manafort gave a Ukrainian oligarch internal campaign polling data, although your characterization of him giving money to "the Russians" is rather dishonest. There is a difference between turning over information to your FSB handler and turning over information to a potential rich employer. Mueller didn't say Manafort turned over internal campaign polling to the Russian government. But as long as you are going to believe that delusion I'm not sure where to go with this, any more than I could make a reasonable argument to a flat-earther that he is wrong.

 

Please specify what I said was inaccurate? How am I "skewing the facts?"

First of all, I didn't see anything in your NPR article (dated 2017) that contradicted what I said. Maybe you could be more specific?

Secondly, you should reread your Crowdstrike link again considering that...

Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC

CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee’s server.

CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public. The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election.

 

You said "We know what happened in the meeting and what it was about, and there is nothing about any sort of collusion"
Except that the meeting itself WAS collaboration, collusion, or conspiracy, no matter what the outcome of the meeting was. How do you know nothing came of it?
If someone tells you what they are doing, and they lie, then later they get caught in the lie, and then tell you something else, do you believe it?
You said "Natalia Veselnitskaya is a lawyer who was hired to lobby to get the Magnitsky Act repealed" True, but you are ignoring that she was representing the Russian government, and the set up for the meeting, and Trump Jr. was well aware of this. The setup for the meeting didn't even mention the Magnisky Act.
I did go back and re-read the link, along with the one you posted.
It's hard to tell what is going on there. The link I provided is from Crowdstrike, and clearly claims stolen emails.
The one you provided is side stepping the actual issue. The comments from Shawn Henry are very specific, I think intentionally to make the waters muddy.
He was asked if he saw the Russians steal the data, and he said he did not, referring to circumstantial evidence. They use the word "exfiltrated", which refers to the actual exfiltration of the data.
None of this matters anyway. The emails were stolen, regardless of who stole them. Unless you think the DNC put the emails out there themselves?
The Real Clear report was written with a serious right leaning bias, but you know that. They are using clever wording in what basically in an op-ed to make it sound that way.
Thanks for actually posting a link! I know it takes some time to find links, and many here won't bother to do it. Not sure why.
That was interesting and points out why there is so much arguing between people.

 

Bonespurs asked. They answered.

 

FS man, you know that Manafort is in jail for lying to Mueller about the polling data. Thats how we KNOW it was their polling data:

Read this: and note that Mueller was able to PROVE all of this......
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

 

OK you didn't provide a link to your claim that Veselnitskaya was representing the Russian government in the case AND that Trump Jr knew she was representing the Russian government at the time of the meeting? That would be breaking news I suppose, but I'm sure you'll provide some link to confirm it.

As for the set up for the meeting not mentioning the Magnisky Act, well of course. Do you think Trump Jr or anyone on the campaign staff would have cared about that? That's why Veselnitskaya lied claiming she had Hillary info. She wanted the meeting and figured correctly that's how to get it.

I don't understand your claim that the meeting itself was collusion. How exactly would that be?

Uh I think it matters a great deal who stole them. If it was the Russians, it's one type of issue, and if it's some disgruntled employee, that's a totally different thing. In this case, it's been presented as a case of Russian hacking. But if it is Russian hacking, that means that Assange has been knowingly working for the Russian government, since Assange's public statements have been that he he knows the source and knows it isn't from the Russians.

Anyway here is the actual testimony of Henry's which I assume you won't think has a "serious right leaning bias." Starts at page 32.

Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? … when would that have been?

Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). … There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.

Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence that they actually were exfiltrated?

Mr. Henry: There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence … but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. …

Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?

Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network.

Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you’ve indicated. …

Mr. Henry: “We didn’t have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.

So in other words, the "proof" they have that the Russians did it was simply that someone did since the data really was stolen.

 

Actually no he wasn't but I appreciate you actually supplying specific charges instead of the vague "collusion" nonsense. I read the link you provided and was disappointed that the underlining was simply...charges being underlined, not actual links.

However, that doesn't mean there are not any links, so lets take a look at these charges:

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

Big, as they say, if true, but where are the evidentiary details of that? I would think if there was actual evidence of that you would have been able to lock up Trump years ago. So show me what you got.

 

He was going to jail and got a reduced sentence after signing the cooperation agreement. He violated it so he did not receive the reduced sentence. The violation of the agreement was due to lying to Mueller, but Manafort was not charged with that crime nor was it pursued outside of removing the reduced sentence for the charges they did get a conviction on(fraud).

 

Politics trumped evidence. Too bad.

The Stench From the Sussmann Verdict

Charles Lipson, The Spectator

 

You didn't read the emails. It explains what Vaselnitskaya was doing.
Why did Trump Sr. make a fake letter from Trump Jr. claiming it was about the orphan children? https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/02/politics/trump-lawyers-statement-trump-tower-russians/index.html
Vaselnitskaya was representing Russia, and it was written in the email if you read it, along with the Russian government wanted to help Trump win.
The least you could do was read it. I started to copy and paste it for you, but if you won't read it, it's not worth bothering.

But I did take the time to read your link. It was very interesting, thanks!
I didn't read it all, but I did track down the parts you copied and pasted, and some more, including the statements around the statements you posted. You conveniently left out parts that would explain what they were referring to. I'm curious, did you copy and paste that from the document, or did you copy and paste what someone else had copied? It doesn't look like you copied that from the original document you linked.
My bet is that you saw that in an article written by someone who wanted to make it sound that way. I wouldn't trust that source for the whole truth.
Imagine this, someone breaks into your house, steals your valuables, but on the way out they spray paint your cameras so that you didn't see them leave with your valuables. You can identify them from the camera when they enter your porch and no one else trips the camera until you get home. The police find the guy on the camera, and he says "I stopped by but left immediately as soon as I realized no one was home." Can you convict them of stealing your stuff, even though you didn't actually catch them red handed?
They couldn't catch the Russians "in the act", but found traces of what they had done, and that they had hacked into the system, besides the obvious that the emails were published. They also found no other evidence of other hackers. It really isn't that difficult to comprehend.
You have run out of road. Bouncing through the dirt.
Post #118 by @grapeape is a pretty good rundown. There's a link in it that could be illuminating for you.

 

Please cite the email that demonstrates that Veselnitskaya was working for the Russian Government for during the time of the Trump Tower meeting.

You seem more concerned about my formatting than the content I posted. You don't seem to have a response to the fact that in spite of public claims both by Crowdstrike and the FBI, they never had any evidence that it was a Russian hack. That seems rather damning but please criticize my formatting.

 

These are things Mueller proved in his investigation, I think you agree that’s not up for debate. Sourcing where the data came from in the public report was never going to happen because outing sources and government tactics isn't needed. Congress saw most of that, and you haven’t heard them come out screaming about how it was faked?

Mueller proved his case, and every honest legal scholar will tell you that the only reason that the there was not a prosecution of Manafort for collusion was that they had to prove not only that the Russian government used the actual data Manafort gave them, but show how and where it was used. Thats wasn’t the charge, because they did prove that Manfort gave them the data.

Per my link they did actually prove a lot more than most people realize. Also note that the government/Mueller did actually prove that Manafort DID do most of what they claim, which is why he is in jail for lying about it.

Personally I think they didn't give Manafort a longer sentence because they still thought they may be able to get him to turn. But in the last 5 months he has been charged 2 more times, so I think the government is going to keep at him. Hell, he was arrested 2 times in the last 6 months for boarding an international flight with a revoked passport, and for hiding more money. Hell his banker just got convicted for loaning him money and not disclosing it.

This guy stinks !!!!!