Guccifer 2.0 - Game Over

It's a pineapple

 

Which is it?
Too stupid to know better or dirty?
You make the call

 

Yeah, its all just a hoax and there is nothing to substantiated the detailed "who, how and when" the indictment contains.

I'd have to retreat a few miles to catch up to you it seems.

 

I can't tell how dirty you might be, but I have a pretty good idea how smart you are.

 

You wanna make it personal or stick to the topic?

 

Oh? so what about the topic? So far you have simply refused to accept evidence for what it is. Now I can understand you having absolutely no clue about the functioning of the cyberverse, and can even understand your inability to do your own research, but I can't understand how you can believe you have some sort of informed opinion on the matter.

Which is probably why you can't come up with a shred of evidence to support your conspiracy theory. Its such a nice bumperstickerm no thought or substantiation is required to be true.

 

What conspiracy?

A crime so grievous that it could bring down our whole democracy occured and neither the FBI or the DNC thought it important enough to hand over every last shred of evidence to the intelligence community, while a third party, a known supporter of the Democrat candidate did the investigation.

Those are just the facts.
The conspiracy is your thoughts.

 

Do you know that Crowdstrike did provide the FBI with such an "acceptable alternative", that this was a "digital image" (replica) of the actual hard drive on the server? Can you provide a credible source? Have you determined the "acceptable alternative" was an actual replica contemporaneous to the alleged hacking, that the server's contents was not altered in any way?

 

You just have to accept it on blind faith.

They don't have to provide evidence to reject that Russia is innocent, you have to provide evidence to prove there was a conspiracy. Anything less and you have to accept their evidence deficient conclusion.
See how that works?

I'm sure their PR team stayed up all night crafting that talking point, completely contrary to set rules of logic.

 

What, you want him to be tortured or otherwise coerced into giving the answer you seem to want? Are you telling me that, at this point in time, Mueller hasn't yet asked the salient questions? Or if he has, Trump has point-blank refused to answer them?

 

That's not what Plus Ultra said. He actually said:

"Their "insurance policy" against Trump was Russian collusion, claiming the DNC server was hacked by Russians sustains Mueller's effort."

It's not at all hard for political operatives like the leadership of the DNC, having learned that their servers had been copied onto a portable device like a thumb drive, decided to fabricate an excuse - ergo: claiming the Russians hacked them - to deflect attention away from what was very sensitive information that was soon to be in the public domain. Julian Assange had, in fact, earlier announced that such information was to shortly be made public.

The fact is that the server was the subject of a leak by an insider or insiders. This is confirmed by former UK Ambassador Craig Murray's public statement that he personally took possession of the DNC and Podesta emails during a visit to Washington and passed these on to Wikileaks.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-british-ambassador-says-he-not-russia-is-the-dnc-leaker/

You can read more on Murray's blog HERE.

 

You mean Russia didn't hack into the presidential election, SH? Blimey, hold the front page! Our bunch of losers in Westminster will be telling us the Russians didn't attempt to assassinate the Skripals next?

 

I'm sorry, what exactly did Crowdstrike give to the FBI, pecifically, as reported in the indictment?

 

If it was a Russian based crime ring, would that make it "the Russians"?

If an American kills someone, does that make it "the Americans" that did it?

 

A crime so grievous it could only be conjured up by the mind of a conspiracy nutter. What are you talking about not turning over intell? Nothing like trying to make this into something its not, but then again that is what a good conspiracy theory is all about.

Take a couple of "facts" then attribute every kind of nefarious conspiratorial motivation action to the individuals. No actual evidence, but a long list of bullshit claims to support your "opinion".

Clownish uninformed nonsense fraught with lies, *********, guesses and supposition. Gee just the things to create your alternate reality.

 

NONSENSE. I guess all that european russian cyber activity was just more FBI deep state nonsense to cast further suspicion on Russia.

As for the Murray's claims, gee, absolutely no evidence to support his claims of woodland meetings with intermediaries and his handing it over to his "associate" assange.

I have some ocean front property in Az that I'll let you have for a song, but you have to act fast.

 

What did the DNC, via Crowdstrike turn over to the FBI. Be specific.
Your turn to shine big boy

 

Mueller has been asking to interview Trump for about a year. Trump’s lawyers have so far not agreed to an interview. So no, Mueller has not been able to ask Trump any questions.

 

Oh, well I don't do that for political matters.

 

Well according to their logic, you now have to prove conspiracy.
They don't have to provide the evidence that rises above the level blind faith acceptance.
Isn't that a neat trick

 

That's easy, a conspiracy requires an agreement, Junior expressed interest in the Hillary 'dirt', but there's nothing to show what he (or anyone else on Trump's team) would do to get that 'dirt'. This is the essential missing element to this fraudulent collusion claim; an offer to induce the delivery or disclosure of Hillary 'dirt'. We're told that offer (and the Russian demand) was to lift sanctions or recognize Crimea's annexation, neither of which have been forthcoming. In fact most international policy analysts will acknowledge Trump's Administration has increased sanctions against Russia.

 

Seems to me there's better evidence the FBI conspired to impute Trump conspired with Russia to win the election than there is that the President actually did so.

 

They probably know it will be a waste of their time, because if what they say isn't what the Mueller investigators want to hear, they won't be believed.

 

Pedant!

 

What a curious guy you are.

Ordinarily, the statement of a witness - and Murray clearly is a witness to the transfer of data from a DNC authorised insider to Wikileaks, by his own testimony - is regarded by courts as "evidence".

https://trial.laws.com/testimony

Murray has made these statements publicly and is on the record doing so. Since he is clearly a prime witness to a criminal event the FBI should question him formally. But they haven't. They've not even contacted him; and that would not be hard since they have agents resident at the US London Embassy. And, of course, that is the real problem. Taking a formal statement from him would immediately classify him as a witness to a crime and since this whole thing is political that is not going to happen. Far better from the politicised FBI to just ignore what he said and assume he didn't make a public statement.

Nice try though.