MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Remember how pro-Russia the Democrats we...

Remember how pro-Russia the Democrats were in 2012?

posted 6 years ago by onlyfactsmatter (256)
78 replies | jump to latest

"Romney, who calls Russia our "No. 1 geopolitical foe," doesn't seem to realize it's the 21st century. #RomneyNotReady"

- The Democrats - https://twitter.com/thedemocrats/status/260497619862835201

"After all, you don't call Russia our No. 1 enemy -- not Al-Qaida, Russia -- unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp."

- Barack Obama at the 2012 DNC - http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160713941/transcript-president-obamas-convention-speech

"You (Romney) said Russia (was our no. 1 enemy), in the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s."

- Barack Obama during 2012 Presidential debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2a44F5TgM)

"Mitt Romney talks like he's seen Russia by watching Rocky IV.

The DNC even made a poster mocking Romney about watching Rocky IV to get his foreign policy: https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/09/romneykerry.jpg

- John Kerry at the 2012 DNC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUyqLrgO7Q

"Its someone dated to be looking backwards."

- Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Romney's views on Russia http://www.redstate.com/erick/2014/03/04/hillary-clinton-mocked-romney-on-russia-then-goes-to-hitler-comparisons/

Vice President Joe Biden assailed Mitt Romney as “fundamentally wrong” and “totally out of touch” on foreign policy in a campaign speech Thursday[/b] — contrasting that to a record of President Barack Obama’s tough but right choices.

Drawing contrasts between President Barack Obama and comments Romney has made on the campaign trail in 2008 and this year, Biden attacked the former Massachusetts governor for being [b]“one of a small group of Cold War holdovers,” for naming Russia as a major threat to the United States and at times referring to Soviets.[/b]

"I don’t know whether it’s a slip of the tongue or a mind-set … Everybody slips. I never do, but everyone does,” [/b]Biden said in a self-deprecating nod to his own gaffes.

- Then VP Joe Biden http://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/biden-assails-mocks-romney-on-foreign-policy-075653

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia — [b]President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sauntered into American presidential politics on Thursday, praising President Obama as “a very honest man” and chastising the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, for describing Russia as “without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe.”
- The New York Times September 2012 archive.is/IsUS9

"After the election I have more flexibility."

- Obama to Russia/Putin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

"Trade With Russia Is a Win-Win. By making Moscow a normal trading partner, Congress would create American jobs and advance human rights."

- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303836404577475061208876588

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

Dems were exactly right in 2012, but Romney and the Deep State are on Saudi Arabia's leash. Russia is corrupt as all hell, but number one geopolitical threat they are not. Honestly, Russia's allies Syria and Iran shouldn't be geopolitical threats either, but the Deep State calls them that because the Saudis don't like them.

Now things are changing between Russia and the Saudis and they are beginning to high-five each other. While Iran's economy continues to crumble, they are on the verge of losing their Russian ally. The Saudis have won, which sucks because Iran's leaders are voted in democratically similar to Putin, but Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that is guilty of spreading the worst of radical Islam.

But go ahead and whine about democrats this and Obama that with your first posts. That's obviously more important.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

You're close.

Russia's allies Syria and Iran shouldn't be geopolitical threats either, but the Deep State calls them that because the Saudis don't like them.

Israel doesn't like them.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

You are close, but I'm closer. Israel doesn't like Iran either, but nobody hates Iran more than the Saudis. The Saudis are the ones waging the proxy wars against them. Israel isn't. The Saudis are the ones paying us for weapons to help in those proxy wars. Israel isn't. Netanyoohoo's lobby continuously makes Israel out to be the victims, but all the rhetoric against Israel is due to their own right-wing mentality of building on the west bank. As long as Israel is seen as the victims, they can build whatever they want.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

I'd say it's both. Israel has been engaged in a proxy war with Iran via Syria.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/07/israels-secret-war-against-iran-is-widening/

They've been engaged in a covert war against Iran for the better part of the past decade, beginning with when Mossad went on that rampage assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists from 2010-2012.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

We know Hamas wants Israel wiped from the face of the earth. We hear it all the time how Muslims and Israelis don't get along because of their squabble over Jerusalem and the holy land, but the Sunni-Shia conflict has a much deeper history to it. Israel allied with the Saudis because the Saudi royals are the big dog in the yard and an ally of the west.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Actually I believe the original quote came from Iran's former hardline president Ahmadinejad, not Hamas. This was way back in 2005 when he made the comment to the Iranian press that Israel should be "wiped off the map". There's been some dispute that was a mistranslation that could be more accurately translated as "Israel will collapse".

Regardless, "wipe off the map" was the way it was widely reported and it's what Netanyahu has seized on to justify his covert war against Iran.

No argument historical Sunni-Shiite enmity of course runs much deeper, but I also don't think it's any secret that Israel exerts far greater influence on our foreign policy establishment than Saudi Arabia.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

The mistranslation wouldn't surprise me, but you're correct that it was Ahmadinejad. I think it's accurate to say Hamas wants Israel gone more than Iran since Iran's governing body is a big mix. Hamas gets most of its funding from those Iranian hardliners, but you are right that they are indeed two different things.

I guess it depends on what you mean by influence. We get more money from the Saudis than we give, and we give more money to Israel than we get. However, even if I'm right that Netanyahu's wing is the lesser influencer, there's a shift coming that's moving away from Saudi Arabia for the first time in a long time. It's just that right now we have an idiot in the white house who wants to build things with his buddy Bin Salman and doesn't understand where we get our oil from. So I'm kinda stuck calling it 50/50 right now.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Yeah Trump is the primary obstacle preventing a greater break from Saudi Arabia. Truth is we really don't need Saudi Arabia as much as they need us. This was less so in the past before the shale oil developments of the past decade that turned the US into a net exporter of refined oil. We might get more money from the Saudis, but it's a reciprocal relationship due to the legitimacy and security arrangements provided by the US alliance. They wouldn't be paying us if it wasn't worth it for them.

The Saudis just don't have anywhere near the influence and lobbying might that Israel has in our society. Consider the spectacle of Netanyahu openly disrespecting and slapping around Obama on the international stage for 8 years. Think we'd ever see that level of disrespect to a US president from a Saudi king? Maybe if the Islamic State took over Saudi Arabia.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.[1]

Israel had us remove Saddam for example.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

Even if Israel was responsible for the hoax of weapons of mass destruction, that does nothing to suggest the Israel-Iran conflict is more formidable than the Sunni-Shia conflict. The Sunnis were at war with Shiites long before Israel even existed.

The Saudis (in the form of ISIS) are the ones vying for control of Syria. They want their pipeline to the Mediterranean so they can cut into the European market. Russia has been allied with Assad to prevent it since Russia controls the European market. Yes, I'm sure Israel would get some cut of it, but we're talking pennies on the dollar. Israel, much like the US, has teamed up with the big dogs of the Middle East to secure their own agenda.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Remember how Republicans-especially Sara Palin -despised the Russians before T-rump got in?

[–] Bubbathegut (18105) 6 years ago

I have learned two facts about liberals over the years, 1. They hate facts. 2. They do not acknowledge the past. Its like they have no memory of anything ever.

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

"They hate facts"?

But Trump isn't a democrat....anymore. And he's the one with the aversion to the truth. So much so, his own lawyer said on national television "Truth isn't truth".

Oh, I forgot....Cracker Barrel had a special going when he said that so his base were remains blissfully ignorant.

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

You realize there's a slight difference between wanting to build a better relationship with another superpower and letting them influence our elections and possibly put an asset of theirs in the White House, right?

Because THAT'S the real difference we're talking about.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

You realize there's a slight difference between wanting to build a better relationship with another superpower and letting them influence our elections and possibly put an asset of theirs in the White House, right?

Putin got involved in the 2012 election, and Russia had no influence. Mexico has way more influence in our elections. Hell, the DNC had a Mexican national speak!

Tbh there's more proof Saddam had WMDs than Russia influenced the election.

Plus, what about the primaries? When Trump was winning the GOP primaries, everyone said it was Clinton he was colluding with. Remember those crackpot theories?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

You're delusional.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Well you told me Iraq had WMDs 15 years ago, why should I believe you now with Russia?

Here is an example of people saying Trump was colluding with Clinton: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/09/jeb-bush-jokes-of-trump-clinton-conspiracy-theory-heres-a-look-at-the-evidence/

Also, if Russia was so influential during the election, then why the hell were the Democrats so confident? Why did Obama go on the Kimmel Show and drop his phone like a mic telling Trump "At least I will go down as President?"

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Terrible analogy. The natsec establishment was under extreme political pressure from Cheney et al to find Iraq culpable of possessing WMD. It was Bush citing bogus claims Saddam was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger that Joseph Wilson had already debunked for CIA. Wilson blew the whistle by going public. His wife was later outed as an UC agent in an act of political retaliation by the Bush administration which made clear the cooked initial assessment was purely a result of strongarm tactics from political leadership. They wanted to manufacture a reason because they were trying to sell the war to the US public and coalition allies.

This isn't even in the same ballpark. Russian culpability for the DNC hacks had been independently determined by 5 separate and well respected cybersecurity firms in the private sector that were first to examine the images of the compromised drives. They each published their comprehensive forensic analysis of the hacks and arrived at the same verdict long before any final report issued by US IC. I'm intimately familiar because I work in this industry and I've been familiar with the two Russian front groups, APT28 and APT 29 (aka Fancy Bear, Cozy Bear) since reading a whitepaper on their activities in 2014. I've read all the reports; the forensic signature is unmistakable and evidence of Russian attribution overwhelming. Russia didn't even try to cover their tracks, it was like a giant FU from the Kremlin.

Facts matter.

And there's a hard digital trail of the Russian troll army Internet Research Agency trolling for Trump days after he first entered the race, bumping up Clinton fake news to feature prominently next to legitimate news on twitter, facebook, google, and yahoo.

These fake stories clearly had influence because I'll still see them peddled by right wing loons to this very day (Hillary starting WW3, Clinton having people killed, Clinton having secret health problems, etc) when the digital trail demonstrably proves the fake news originated from Sputnik and RT, both propaganda arms of the Kremlin. Meanwhile, no one remembers or cares about Latino speakers at the Democratic National Convention. That's why your non-event had zero influence and zero impact. Concurrently, DNC email dumps via wikileaks courtesy of Russia clearly had a divisive influence disillusioning Sanders supporters among the Dem base.

You forgot that only facts matter.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Here is Mueller saying Saddam had WMDs under oath, did Mueller lie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FWSnMNt0bM

Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical, or radiological material.

- Mueller, February 2003

Also, what if I were to tell you Clinton ALSO said Iraq had WMDs and was willing to use or sell them?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

lolz. Non sequitur much? You apparently have a really poor understanding of how government works. Bush was in charge. Not Mueller, not Clinton. Bush was the one pushing bogus intel stories that had already been debunked by Wilson in CIA.

In fact Clinton was a NY Senator, she only knew what she'd been briefed. Since she was being briefed cooked intel by the Bush loyal flunkies in CIA on what Iraq had, then OF COURSE that's what she said. Same goes with Mueller. He wasn't an intel analyst, he only knew what he'd been briefed.

Again, so how do we know it was the Bush administration responsible for pressuring CIA intel to fit their narrative instead of someone in CIA cooking the intel on their own? Because instead of admitting he was wrong and demanding an investigation of the CIA for squashing Wilson's report, HIS ADMINISTRATION RESPONDED BY OUTING HIS WIFE IN RETALIATION! It was Bush and Cheney that wanted that war.

You keep forgetting that facts matter.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

I was in fact referring to BILL Clinton, not Hillary. And AFAIK, Bill was never a NY Senator.

From 1998: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you HE'LL USE THAT ARSENAL...."

Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright regarding Iraq:

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Let me guess, Cheney took over her body?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

" Now, let's imagine the future. **What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction** and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?"

From 1998. Was this the Bush Administration? AFAIK, Bush didn't become President til January 20, 2001. So what's up with this?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Apparently you're not aware that Saddam DID have WMDs but got rid of them. You're quoting a transcript from 1998, 5 years prior to Bush cooked CIA assessments.

Again, you keep forgetting the essential facts, like the purported time when Saddam had WMD was in 2003. Not 1998.

Facts matter.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

you're not aware that Saddam DID have WMDs but got rid of them.

Yes, everyone - even in 2003 - believe Saddam had WMDs and was going to use/sell them. During the debates, Gore was more anti-Saddam than Bush was.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Sorry but the debates with Gore was in 2000.

FYI: Saddam didn't have WMD in 2003.

The year does matter because facts matter.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

FYI: Saddam didn't have WMD in 2003.

Everyone already knew that - the war had nothing to do with WMDs. Nor Bush, nor Cheney.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

The war had everything to do with Bush and Cheney starting the war on cooked intel they were pushing.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

I am going to humor you: why did Bush and Cheney want the war?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

You're not old enough to remember?

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

It was oil, right? Lol.

BTW it wasn't Cheney that started the Iraq War. It was Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle who were the (initial) architects.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Nope. It was William Kristol and Robert Kagan that founded PNAC. Bush and Cheney were two of ten original charter signatories that served in Bush's administration.

Get your facts straight.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Actually agree with you here and would love to see Kagan and Kristol face the firing squads. In fact, the fact Trump isn't going after these war criminal Neocons to me is a huge negative.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Now, with regards to Russia.

First of all,the servers were never investigated by the FBI. They were investigated by an anti-Russian Ukrainian company called Crowdstrike. In fact, the FBI asked MULTIPLE times for the DNC's servers and never got them. Why not?

Also, the DNC hired security analyst from Good Harbor and Good Harbor never mentioned any Russian hacking. And after Bernie got caught trying to steal voter data in December 2015, the DNC did another report and never mentioned any foreign hacking attempts either.

What happened was the DNC emails were leaked, and Podesta is a dumb ass who fell for a phishing scam. His password was literally passw0rd or runner123. He left his phone in a cab before. He's a DUMB ASS, and we're not restarting the Cold War because he's an idiot.

bumping up Clinton fake news to feature prominently next to legitimate news on twitter, facebook, google, and yahoo.

Trump faced more negative news than anyone else in history.

These "Clinton is a murderer" stories have been going on since the 90s and have nothing to do with Russia.

LMAO RT And Sputnik don't even have 0.1% of the influence that CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox (which was pretty anti-Trump during the campaign), etc. etc. have. Just LMAO at blaming her loss on the RT. Oh and by the way, EVERY other country was biased in favor for Clinton. The BBC and CBC were disgustingly biased. German networks would attack him as well as Chinese networks.

Hell the UK parliament tried banning Trump from the country during the campaign!

Concurrently, DNC email dumps via wikileaks courtesy of Russia clearly had a divisive influence disillusioning Sanders supporters among the Dem base.

If this were true, why was everyone so confident Clinton would win?

Why did Obama go on Jimmy Kimmel, drop his phone (like a mic) and tell Trump "At least I will go down as President?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvgnOqcCYCM

Why did Obama frequently taunt Trump during the campaign and told him to "quit whining?"

Why did the Democrats want to "maximize Trump" during a July 2015 email? Were they also colluding with Trump and Russia?

Why did Bill Clinton ask Trump to run for President a month before Trump announced? Was he colluding with Russia and Trump too? Why would a former Commander-in-Chief and the husband to the Dem 2016 nominee collude with Russia and Trump to have Trump win?

In all irony, Bill's conversation with Trump actually influenced Trump's choice to run, while Russia wasn't even on Trump's mind in early 2015.

[–] Topcat81 (222) 6 years ago

All good points. Fact is, Hillary lost due to her own stupidity and arrogance.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Another point that's never brought up is that she spent twice as much as Trump did. In fact, she spent more on her campaign than anyone else in the history of democracy has. So much for Democrats being against money in politics right?

She had EVERYONE on her side. Virtually all other countries - China, Japan, SK, Russia, Germany, France, the UK, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. - supported her over Trump.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Why are you talking to your sock?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Again, I work in infosec. I'm intimately familiar with the technology and what can and can't be faked. I reviewed the forensic evidence, including the zero day unpublished exploits utilized by Fancy and Cozy Bear from the raw dumps of decompiled code in the drive images provided by Crowdstrike. The idea that never seen before unpublished exploits with signature code obfuscation variations that had only been seen and exploited by these two Russian front groups could have been faked by Crowdstrike is nothing short of ludicrous.

Let me spell it out for you, Crowdstrike is a cybersecurity firm with a strong industry rep in the business of protecting and securing corporate clients. They are not a private blackops shop in the highly illegal rogue venture of inventing and weaponizing counterfeit zero day exploits for the purpose of framing foreign governments for cyber-offensive operations. That's not what they do. You really have no idea what you're even talking about.

You are literally regurgitating right wing conspiracy talking points that have NO BASIS in reality. And you'll have to do a whole lot better than trying to discredit Crowdstrike seeing how their competitors ThreatConnect, Mandiant, Fidelis Cybersecurity, and Secureworks have also published their own analysis and have come to the same conclusion.

Not really sure what your point is with Podesta. Yeah, he get spearphished by Russian GRU. You're talking like his poor opsec justifies the hack and leaks by Russian intel. Your logic is like blaming the bank for getting robbed.

And again, I've seen the forensics of the clear digital line of RT and Sputnik fake news stories being amplified by armies of Russian bots 'liking' an article or post, which gamed the algorithms for those fake stories to rise to prominence on google, yahoo, twitter, and facebook.

That's what 'influence' is, it's getting fake stories read and believed by enough people so it can have impact.

You keep forgetting that facts matter.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

1. Why didn't the DNC let the FBI investigate their servers even when the FBI requested them? Crowdstrike then cleans the DNC servers, and doesn't allow the FBI to access them. The FBI made "mutiple requests at different levels" but the DNC refused. (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers)
2. Crowdstrike has been wrong about Russian hacking before: https://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html
3. Crowdstrike is ran by an anti-Russian Ukrainian.
4. The USA was USA officials did not want to base U.S. national security assessments on the work of a private cybersecurity firm with ties to the Clinton campaign. They were hesitant to agree at first. (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html)

Why?
5. Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign accesses team Clinton voter data in December 2015: (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/documents-show-sanders-staffers-breached-clinton-voter-data) This causes the DNC to retaliate by banning him from DNC voter data, which causes the Sanders campaign to sue the DNC.

In response to this, the DNC hires the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in early 2016, which releases a report in April 2016. Russian hacking is not mentioned anywhere.

You are literally regurgitating right wing conspiracy talking points that have NO BASIS in reality.

1. Why did the Democrats want to "maximize Trump" in July 2015 according to an email?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10348

Why did the DNC want to "maximize" a Russian asset?

2. Bill Clinton called Trump and told him to run: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Clinton-Encouraged-Trump-to-Run-for-President_Washington-DC-320827311.html

Why did he collude with Russia to do that?

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Here's a better question: Why do you guys keep creating fresh accounts to post your BS with?

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Why did a former Commander-in-Chief, husband to the Democrat nominee for 2016 Presidential race, encourage a Russian asset to run for President?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

lolz.

So you're just trolling. Got it.

Masterful setup BTW, you were subtle enough that I actually took you seriously for awhile.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

It's a legit question. A July 2015 email (linked above) showed the Democrats wanted to "maximize Trump." Bill Clinton called Trump a month before his announcement to encourage him to run. So what's up with that? Did Putin manipulate all that too?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Why did Trump try to recruit Clinton to be a Russian spy? Why was Trump as gullible as you appear to be? It's a legit question.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

1. Because that's not how data recovery in forensics works.

The first thing you do with a compromised server is do a raw dump of the drive images to create an exact replica, including sha256 checksums of the image so it can't be manipulated.

Then you give the servers back because they are irrelevant at that point. All that matters are the images, not the hardware itself.

That's why Trump always going to this talking point was always the biggest red herring based on total ignorance. Comey even acknowledged in testimony that he was told by his agents they got the "equivalent". He's not a tech guy himself, but that would mean he got a copy of the original images.

2. I've read the complete forensic report, the only thing they got wrong was an annotated footnote where they misquoted Ukrainian artillery numbers in a citation. There was NOTHING they got wrong in the actual forensic analysis in their report. That didn't stop the conspiracy theorists on both the left and the right from trying to use that miscitation as reason to discredit the entire report. All you need to do is read the original report to see what they got wrong had nothing to do with the hacking itself.

3. Seriously, who is your source? Infowars? Ever consider fact checking your sources? Crowdstrike is jointly run by two primary partners. One is born and bred American, the other is Russian born in Moscow, moved here when he was 10. Absolutely no evidence that he's Ukrainian. You're a propaganda victim dude.

4. What does this have anything to do with anything?

5. Clinton's campaign team left their voter database open and it was searched by Sanders supporters. So what? What does this have anything to do with anything? Do you understand the DNC is an entirely separate organization than the Clinton campaign team?

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

, not the hardware itself.

1. Then why did the FBI make multiple requests for the hardware itself? Was the FBI just asking for the lulz?
2. This is our national security at stake right, so why didn't the DNC just give them the servers they requested? Don't you think that with a foreign enemy hacking them they should give them up FOR NATIONAL SECURITY?

But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

About 4, you said Bush lied about Iraq WMDs - I am pointing out Crowdstrike's ties to the Clinton campaign. The USA was initially reluctant to believe a third party like that, but did it to stop Trump. That goes back to my national security issue - so you're OK with leaving our national security in the hands of idiots? Seems like you are.

"Clinton's campaign team left their voter database open and it was searched by Sanders supporters. So what? What does this have anything to do with anything?"

That was the only real hack of the campaign, and after they investigated the servers, Crowdstrike didn't report any Russian hacking.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

1. Yeah according to Trump who makes shit up constantly. Show me congressional testimony from Comey stating they made multiple requests for the servers. You can't do it because he didn't say that. FBI already knew Russia was behind the hacks because they called DNC themselves and tried to tip them off that data from their server was being downloaded to Russia. Low level tech@DNC didn't take them seriously because he was dumbfuck low level tech. This was said in testimony and reported in the NY Times.

Dude I urge you to read congressional transcripts and get up to speed. It's like you've been living under a rock reading nothing but Infowars for 2 years. You've got a lot of catching up in the real world to do.

2. Do you speak English? Read #1 from my previous post over again slowly so you understand it. Maybe these concepts are just over your head, but you need to put more personal effort in trying to figure out simple paragraphs. You're wasting my time asking questions I've already answered.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.

"Low level tech@DNC didn't take them seriously because he was dumbfuck low level tech"

We can agree on one thing: Democrats tend to be dumb. Podesta falls for obvious phishing scams. Obama continues to make dumb predictions in 2016. Now you're just adding it on lol.

Let me ask you this: why the hell would I elect leaders that were so dumb that their tech people don't consider the FBI telling them THEY ARE BEING HACKED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY?

Come on, think before you type!

"Read #1 from my previous post over again slowly so you understand it. "

Once again, if it's national security at stake, then they'd want the servers themselves. The reason they never gave up the servers is simple: they don't want more thing getting leaked and they know the Russia thing is BS.

Democrats have compared the hacking to 9-11. To 9-11! Look at the security we go through even today due to 9-11 - from the TSA to the NSA to the "terrorism meter." Now you're telling me we went from all of that (and more) to the FBI just saying "lol we no need ur server even thouh this is comparable to 9-11!!!!111"

On one hand, you're trying to tell me that our democracy was attacked by a foreign adversary (how? I don't know. After all, Russia was a "regional power" that was "acting out of weakness" in 2014, how did they change in one year?), but then you're telling me not looking at physical evidence is OK?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Again, you didn't read my post. I'll repost it for your benefit. My words appear to be flying over your head. You're like that low level tech who has no idea what he's talking about so you make shit up to fill in for your ignorance. What's funny is you how you would hold it against the DNC for hiring an ignorant low level tech when you're pulling the same shit.

"1. Because that's not how data recovery in forensics works.

The first thing you do with a compromised server is do a raw dump of the drive images to create an exact replica, including sha256 checksums of the image so it can't be manipulated.

Then you give the servers back because they are irrelevant at that point. All that matters are the images, not the hardware itself.

That's why Trump always going to this talking point was always the biggest red herring based on total ignorance. Comey even acknowledged in testimony that he was told by his agents they got the "equivalent". He's not a tech guy himself, but that would mean he got a copy of the original images."

So read my lips. THE SERVERS THEMSELVES ARE IMMATERIAL! When I go on site to diagnose a compromised server the first thing I do is make a copy of the drives. I then give the servers back to the client so they can continue using them.

Handing over the servers wouldn't have done one bit of good because they would have formatted over the compromised drives that need to be diagnosed. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE IMAGES OF THE DRIVES which the FBI got. You and Trump are two peas in a pod pushing a conspiracy over the servers when the servers themselves DON'T MATTER.

Does this make even the slightest bit of sense to you? If not, it's because it's over your head and you should leave it to the techs that actually understand what they're doing instead of making up bullshit conspiracies to fit your biased narrative.

What's hilarious is how you call yourself 'onlyfactsmatter' when for you they clearly don't.

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

How about the indictments, guilty pleas and cases that have gone to court? I swear, I’m not sure which is worse for Trump...his followers or his own pathological lying.

Got to wonder which one of the usual idiots this 9 post wonder is a sock account for.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

How about the indictments, guilty pleas and cases that have gone to court?

Nothing to do with Russian collusion, all to do with random crap they dug for with all they can. A lot of Clinton's people got indicted from Special Prosecutions in the 90s, and Clinton himself even got perjury-trapped and got impeached.

Special prosecutions search for ANYTHING - they're political weapons. But Trump does need to open his eyes and open up a Special Prosecution on Hillary and Obama.

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

And right there you’ve told us everything we need to know about you.

Pitiful

[–] FishGottoSwim (473) 6 years ago

Random crap? That they DUG for?

It was fucking BLATANT. Trump's relatives, allies & associates colluded IN PUBLIC & ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

Is perjury "random crap?"
Illegal solicitation of foreign donations "random crap?" What about Election Fraud, Bank Fraud, Wire Fraud?

They made clandestine agreements with hostile foreign powers. That's "random crap?"

Mike Flynn was a PAID FOREIGN AGENT, pushing a pro-Turkish, pro-Putin agenda. He neglected to report that on his government disclosure forms. At least 15 times.

What about the others lying to Congress & the FBI? What about Campaign Chair Manafort telling Russian oligarch "how can I use this position to be whole?"

Don Spawn Junior Trump provided emails showing he accepted an offer of a foreign government & met with an agenda to come to a mutual agreement - and those are 2 of the 3 legs of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY charges.

I named specific charges which a LEGITIMATE Law enforcement professional is investigating.

YOU, "onlyfactsmatter" call up Hillary & Obama with bullshit smear & innuendo. Either name a SPECIFIC charge against them or fuck off with your bullshit talking points.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Don Spawn Junior Trump provided emails showing he accepted an offer of a foreign government & met with an agenda to come to a mutual agreement - and those are 2 of the 3 legs of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY charges.

Lol this is nothing compared to what he Democrats do.

Hell the UK Parliament literally debated banning Trump from the country during the campaign.

Not to mention none of Manafort's charges have to do with Russia, and Cohen's guilty plea was a perjury trap, not "collusion."

I'll believe Iraq had WMDs before I believe you.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

This thread is awesome. Pro-war leftists defending Hillary's WMD lie on the grounds that "she had bad intel".

This is why they deplatform rather than debate.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

When you point out the Iraq War was bipartisan, they tend to flip out. They expect us to believe this Russian collusion crap so soon after lying about WMDs? It's such an insult.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Only you and Alex Jones believes that. Everyone knows it was bipartisan.

[–] TimMC (9143) 6 years ago

'member Obama being called the "Deporter n Chief" by the media? I member.

[–] FishGottoSwim (473) 6 years ago

What a fucking bullshit post. No. Dems weren't "PRO-RUSSIA" in 2012. Way to frame your cherry-picked talking point!

It's TRUE that the (non-partisan) AUDIENCE at the debate laughed when Romney talked about Russia. CONTEXT.

CONTEXT.
CONTEXT.

Americans at the time were at war in at least 2 countries - soldiers had been dying in Iraq & Afghanistan for nearly a decade & RUSSIA was just another old foe out there.

Russia was NOT the focus of US foreign policy then.

But why aren't they the focus of US foreign policy NOW? NOW we have proof that they ATTACKED us.

So what does Trump do? Trump has attacked more Americans than he has Russians. 'What, you think WE didn't do bad things?"

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Russia was NOT the focus of US foreign policy then. [/quote]

What did the former governor of Massachusetts see in Russia that our Commander-in-Chief, TWO Secretary of States, and our Vice President could not see? If Russia was not a focus, then how come Romney was right?

Also, do you believe Putin assassinates political enemies?

[quote]NOW we have proof that they ATTACKED us.

*You 15 years ago" NOW we have proof Saddam has WMDs!

Lol you losing an election is not them "attacking us." You do know the Democrats literally promoted Trump more than Russia did right?

When Trump was winning the GOP primaries, the Republicans said he was colluding with CLINTON. Why should I believe your crazy theory over that one?

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

Everything you post is whataboutism. What about dems and Russia? What about Saddam and WMDs? None of it even connects to anything you want it to.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Everything connects. Why should I believe you about Russia today when you told me in 2012 Romney was an idiot for saying Putin was a threat, or in 2003 you swore to me Saddam had WMDs?

If anything, the motives to lie have increased - you want Trump out.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

You and dlancer were discussing politics in 2003?

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

If you believe in Russian collusion/interference with the election, you believed in Iraq WMDs as they are both promoted by the same people.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

That is about as non-sequitur as one can get, onlyliesmatter.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

In 2003, just like you, and probably just like Mueller, I either assumed Iraq had them or were close to getting them. But like I said before, Iraq having WMDs didn't make a difference. The Bush admin was going to war regardless, pushed by your conservatard hatred for Muslims in a post 9/11 world. As a progressive, I don't have to lie to say I opposed the war from the beginning, while you and your ilk bitched about France and barked about "freedom fries." You didn't oppose the war until Bush's rating began to tank.

Getting back to WMDs, all we had to go on was Iraq kicking out the weapon's inspectors. We didn't get to see any intel where certain Iraqis claimed they had WMDs, but we have Roger Stone claiming he had prior knowledge to the Wikileaks dumps stolen by Guccifer 2.0. We also have intel regarding Russia's troll factory where they launched a massive pro-Trump social media campaign. This is why your WMDs analogy is so pathetic. The most accurate analogy to the Mueller investigation you could possibly come up with is Watergate, but you don't mention that because you know how bad it turned out for your boy Nixon.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

As a progressive, I don't have to lie to say I opposed the war from the beginning,

If you believe in Russian collusion, you believed in Iraq WMDs. Period. The same people are pushing (pushed) both lies.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

"If you believe in Russian collusion, you believed in Iraq WMDs."

You can't even keep your analogies straight. At first it was Russian interference, now it's Russian collusion. You quoted me saying I opposed the war, but you switched it to WMDs which has nothing to do with me opposing the war.

You constantly run into these problems because you have no actual argument. Perhaps if you'd put more thought into it beforehand, you wouldn't have to create new accounts.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

At first it was Russian interference, now it's Russian collusion.

Same deal.

"which has nothing to do with me opposing the war."

Once again, if you believe Russia is a threat to us, then you also believed Saddam was as well. It's the EXACT same playbook, and this time it's all about Syria.

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

"Same deal."

Uh, no. A foreign country helping a candidate without the candidate knowing is VERY different from a candidate working with that foreign country to help the candidate.

"Once again, if you believe Russia is a threat to us, then you also believed Saddam was as well."

I don't see how. Russia is only a minor threat, capable of disrupting our elections and not much else, which is an easy fix as long as we don't have an idiot in the White House pushing for its continuation. Saddam wasn't a threat to us at all, but he was a dictator who used nerve gas on the Kurds and Shiites.

"this time it's all about Syria."

Not really. Russia's interference has way more to do with the sanctions we've imposed on them. I would say their #1 priority is to lift our sanctions against them regarding ExxonMobil, so they can have their trillion dollar pipeline. Russia is allied with Syria just for the time being to stifle the Saudi's entry into the European market. Russia can drop Syria as an ally at the tip of a hat.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

You're still supporting the Iraq war. Your media is crying for George Bush.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Trump's Presidency has been a failure but one thing he did was expose progressives/liberals as frauds. Too bad he can't take advantage of that.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Because again, Russian involvement was demonstrated in the forensic reports of FIVE private sector security firms. No one is asking you to take their word for it. The hard proof is in the reports.

You are literally the king of the straw man.

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

A security firm with DNC ties says what the DNC wants it to say (and remember, during Crowdstrike's initial report in April, Russian hacking was not mentioned anywhere). More news at 11.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

You just proved yourself to be a liar and a hack claiming Crowdstrike came out with any such report in April when they hadn't even released their first report until JUNE 14th, and the original report clearly mentioned Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear in their conclusions and the RUSSIAN LANGUAGE code obfuscations in the exploit code of the compromised servers.

You're also quite the simpleton in thinking a security firm can just fake the hard proof in a forensic report to say whatever the DNC wants them to say. The idea itself is laughable. That's like saying police can just fake the hard science of DNA forensics linking a suspect to a murder. Nope, not when there's 4 other competitors scrutinizing their work.

That's FIVE security firms, plural. And what about the forensic reports from Secureworks, who did the forensics write up that identified Russian proxy Cozy Bear from successful phishing attacks from 2015, long before the Podesta compromise? Two Russian proxies had compromised the DNC servers, not just one. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Your problem is relying on Alex Jones and tech neophytes and conspiracy theorists to form your conclusions. For you facts don't matter.

What about the fact that you keep pushing bullshit about Crowdstrike founder being Ukrainian?

[–] onlyfactsmatter (256) 6 years ago

Here, I will let the United States Government explain my position:

"USA officials did not want to base U.S. national security assessments on the work of a private cybersecurity firm with ties to the Clinton campaign. They were hesitant to agree at first." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html

The FBI made "mutiple requests at different levels" but the DNC refused. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

In 2012, you called Romney UNQUALIFIED for his statements on Russia. So if you believe Russia is such a threat, why did you say that about Romney?

With regards to DNA, you do know the police collect the physical evidence right? So if anything, this analogy backfires. So if someone commits murder, if the victim's family denies the police the evidence, the police have to oblige? The victim's family can do their own investigation? That's not how it works buddy. Maybe in the USSR, but not the USA.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

What's funny is how incoherent you are. You were initially arguing that the government can't be trusted because of a faulty WMD assessment 15 years ago that was the result of cooked intel.

But no one is asking you to trust the intel agencies. The DNC did the right thing by allowing examination of the evidence and fully transparent publishing of the results from 5 separate firms. If they had turned it over to the FBI we the public would have never seen the published forensics, they just would have told us to take their word for it. And if that had happened, you'd be crying about WMD 15 years ago and how that intel can't be trusted. You're squirming because your ignorant argument doesn't work in this case.

So which one is it? Should the DNC have turned over everything to the FBI or private sector? Because you can't seem to make up your mind and rely on BS conspiracies that have no basis in fact. I think the DNC did the right thing because we the public were able to evaluate the evidence instead of implicitly trusting the intel agencies. Just because you're too stupid to understand and judge the evidence yourself doesn't make it false.

"With regards to DNA, you do know the police collect the physical evidence right? So if anything, this analogy backfires."

Hard to believe you're really this dumb when Comey wasn't denied evidence. Comey told the House committee in testimony he was given full access to the images and forensics.

“We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this, my folks tell me, was an appropriate substitute,” Comey said.

DNC spokeswoman Adrienne Watson told PolitiFact that the DNC cooperated with the FBI’s requests, which resulted in the DNC providing a copy of their server.

“An image of a server is the best thing to use in an investigation so that your exploration of the server does not change the evidence (just like you don’t want investigators leaving their own DNA around a physical crime scene) and so that the bad actors cannot make changes to the evidence while you are looking at it,” Watson said. “Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/

I've already explained to you 5 times that the servers weren't handed over because they had no forensic value by the time the FBI got around to requesting them. That's because the data on them had already been removed and forensically preserved. Anyone in tech would understand this. In fact anyone with a modicum of intelligence would understand this. You are clearly too stupid to understand the significance of what I'm saying.

It's like if a murder had taken place in a car. The photos, DNA, fingerprints, everything from the crime scene is preserved. A video is even made of the inside of the car illustrating every nook and cranny. The car is then given back to owner who has it cleaned and detailed so they can continue using it. The car at that point has NO FORENSIC VALUE. Pointing at the car not being turned over after its already been sanitized to make it drivable again is a giant head fake by Tramp because he doesn't like the evidence found in the car. It's a bogus argument to misdirect dupes like you so gullible that you fall for it.

So going back to why my analogy succeeds and you fail, police don't ignore DNA evidence from a murder just because the evidence wasn't collected by them. That's because there are other ways in forensics to verify the evidence hadn't been tampered with and manipulated.

On the other hand, you're crying because the FBI who you claim not to even trust, wasn't the initial agency to diagnose the crime. But why are you complaining when you keep arguing that US intel got Iraqi WMD wrong? We've got the benefit of seeing all the hard evidence published in 5 reports. I as a security analyst am thrilled to be able to see and evaluate the evidence and have confidence in what the facts demonstrate regarding the certainty of Russian involvement. You should be glad the FBI wasn't first on the scene. I know I am.

You keep forgetting that facts matter.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

"5 private sector security firms"? Last year you told us it was "17 intelligence agencies".

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Nope. Never said anything about 17 intel agencies. That was another useless MSM canard you NPC magatards fell for.