Wednesday morning links

Watching the Tucker Carlson clip, gives me a new appreciation of just how corrupt our government really is. Corrupt, self serving maniacs. These people, our ‘elected’ representatives, are causally talking about nuclear biological war. As if it is just another scene in a movie. It appears that they are poking Putin until he uses these weapons. They are purposely causing a nuclear exchange. I find it hard to wrap my mind around how extraordinarily evil this is.

Billions and billions of dollars, American wealth that doesn’t exist; they’re just printing more paper; more inflation. To what end? Billions of dollars that they will not spend protecting Americas own boarder. No, these people want that boarder as porous as possible. Not only are they spending billions in Ukrainian, but I have read reports of them taking money from the VA, and spending it on illegal border crossers. So American warriors, injured and maimed in a foreign conflict, that these same people mismanaged, are going to spend money that was authorized for their healing, on illegal emigrants. Damn them.

#2 B. Hammer on 2022-05-04 10:03 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Nor is it a coincidence that Zelensky has become massively wealthy as Ukraine's president.

That is false and likely Russian propaganda.

QUOTE:

It's worth noting, though, that whereas Trump would have worked to tamp down Putin's willingness to go to war, Biden seems to have encouraged it, beginning with his support for Ukraine joining NATO, something no one — Europe, Ukraine, Putin — wanted.

That is false. NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration (2008): "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO," reaffirmed in the NATO Brussels Summit Communiqué (2021). Also, Ukraine's Zelenskyy presses Biden on NATO membership. Then there's this (concerning joining the EU).

QUOTE:

Hillary and her cohorts created the lie that Putin put Trump in office.

Russia interfered in the US election, including hacking the DNC, then released the hacked emails to cause maximum political damage to Clinton. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia was attempting to help Trump, that the Trump campaign welcomed the interference, and that contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents constituted a grave intelligence threat.

QUOTE:

BIDEN: "There have not been many senators from Delaware. It's a small state. Matter of fact, there's never been one."

An obvious joke which the audience got. But whatever confirms your preconceptions.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 10:29 (Reply)

"An obvious joke which the audience got. But whatever confirms your preconceptions."

Does this mean we can expect an apology for the many times you've mischaracterized Trump's "Hillary's emails" jokes?

A little bit would go a long way toward mitigating your reputation for intellectual dishonesty.

#2.1.1 SK on 2022-05-04 11:31 (Reply)

SK: Does this mean we can expect an apology for the many times you've mischaracterized Trump's "Hillary's emails" jokes?

It wasn't a joke. Nor does saying Delaware never had a Senator have the import of asking Russia to break the law during a campaign.

An example of an actual joke would be Reagan's hot-mike comment, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." It was meant as a joke, but was very unwise, considering the power given to the president to launch nuclear weapons.

But Trump's comment was neither a joke or of an inconsequential matter. Indeed, within hours, new efforts were made by Russia to hack into Clinton's private server. Russia was listening.

#2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:38 (Reply)

Tucker Carlson is America's #1 television commentator for a good reason, but the acid test for any of these guys, left or right, is how well does their material hold up when they're talking about something you know quite a bit about, already? In my case, it's the oil & gas business, which has been my profession for over 40 years.

It's only then, that one can recognize how carefully-crafted the material is to provoke an emotional reaction to the content and steer one's opinions. Hearing the comments of Bill O'Reilly, Carlson, and others across the spectrum when speaking on this subject made me realize that it really is best to consider this programming as just a form of entertainment, at best. It's one of the reason I don't watch much TV.

#2.2 Aggie on 2022-05-04 10:32 (Reply)

Ditto that.

#2.2.1 RL on 2022-05-04 12:01 (Reply)

The late Michael Crichton said much the same.

#2.2.2 DeGaulle on 2022-05-04 19:06 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Durham’s Latest Move Has Hillary In Panic Mode . . . Durham wrote a court filing at the time saying the Clinton campaign paid a tech company to “infiltrate” Trump Tower’s and White House’s servers in order to establish a narrative of links between Trump and Russia.

False. Durham's motion never claims the tech company "infiltrated" the servers.

#3 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 10:07 (Reply)

Who created the Russia-Russia hoax?

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2022-05-04 10:13 (Reply)

Bird Dog: Who created the Russia-Russia hoax?

As above: Russia interfered in the US election, including by hacking the DNC, then released the hacked emails to cause maximum political damage to Clinton. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia was attempting to help Trump, that the Trump campaign welcomed the interference, and that contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents constituted a grave intelligence threat.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 10:31 (Reply)

The senate intelligence committee had the same information that the FBI had and if they had additional information it was not legal for them to withhold it from the FBI.
The FBI never investigation the DNC hack. That "investigation" was done internal to the DNC. Just as the Steele dossier was done by the Hillary campaign.

#3.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 10:41 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The FBI never investigation the DNC hack.

That is false.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 10:46 (Reply)

The DOJ can indict anyone they please, but they have as yet to prove anything other than making hysterical accusations. Your statement is false.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 10:57 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The DOJ can indict anyone they please

A federal indictment requires probable cause presented to a grand jury.

Your claim was that the FBI did not investigate. That is obviously false.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:03 (Reply)

The FBI no longer investigates. It simply collaborates with the current talking points/narratives of the DNC/administrative state.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 11:15 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The FBI no longer investigates.

That's just silly. Indictments have to show probable cause in court, meaning indictments require evidence which is material and probative. In addition, FBI indictments have a high rate of conviction. Convictions require a providing proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury in a court of law. That doesn't mean the system never gets it wrong, or that the system isn't sometimes stacked against poor and minorities. But that is a far cry from saying "The FBI no longer investigates."

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:23 (Reply)

The FBI investigating the Whitmer kidnapping, the Jan 6 group, the Steele dossier, white nationalism, and Russia, Russia, Russia while ignoring most BLM and Antifa murder, destruction and thievery. They were only recently found to have continued their illegal spying on citizens without obtaining the proper warrants. They have become a politicized and criminal organization. They illegally spied on Trump and Trump campaigners by simply lying their way through the intelligence courts with false statements to continue their spying. That you find it silly is rather silly. They are no longer a trusted government agency along with several other admin state agencies. The government is falling apart and is only held together with copious amounts of bribery and extortion.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 11:51 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The FBI investigating the Whitmer kidnapping, the Jan 6 group, the Steele dossier, white nationalism, and Russia, Russia, Russia while ignoring most BLM and Antifa murder, destruction and thievery.

The investigation of J6 has led to multiple convictions. The Steele dossier was raw intelligence, which the FBI investigated, finding a mix of fact and unsubstantiated rumor. White nationalism is an actual thing. Russia did interfere in the U.S. presidential election, running a troll farm that is impacting many open societies. Hundreds of people were arrested and charged for crimes during riots associated with the BLM demonstrations. All of these examples undercut your position.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 12:01 (Reply)

And all this time I thought it was an insurrection. The FBI's white nationalism, along with Lloyd Austin, is nothing more than anti-white racism. Meanwhile, murder statistics kept by the FBI should inform them who the actual racists have become. The Steele dossier was all fake, the CIA knew it was fake and as the FBI had agents that collaborated with the CIA it is quite likely the FBI also knew it was fake from the beginning. The FBI and the rest of the admin state simply kept trying to keep Trump from coming after their illegal spying and after Hillary's illegal server. By the way, there were classified documents on that server. What did the FBI do about it. Where is Anthony Weiners laptop information? Where is the investigation on Joe Jr's laptop?

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 12:19 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: And all this time I thought it was an insurrection.

Two people have already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy for the events of J6. Many others of been convicted of lesser charges.

indyjonesouthere: The FBI's white nationalism, along with Lloyd Austin, is nothing more than anti-white racism.

White nationalism was at the center of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

indyjonesouthere: The Steele dossier was all fake

That is incorrect. A central allegation, that Russia was interfering in the election to help Trump and hurt Clinton, has been upheld by multiple investigations.

indyjonesouthere: By the way, there were classified documents on that server. What did the FBI do about it.

The FBI investigated and declined to prosecute Clinton as there was lack of evidence of intent. Anthony Weiner was convicted. They are still investigating Hunter Biden.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 12:29 (Reply)

Most are for trespass and what little video has been released shows many were waved in. Did the FBI set up the "insurrection" like they set up the Whitmer kidnapping? Investigate the FBI.
White nationalism is joke but it definitely shows we have a black nationalism problem with BLM burning and looting. California won't even keep the black nationalists from walking out of stores with their loot in broad daylight.
Hillary's server disgrace did not require the FBI find lack of "intent" in order to not refer her to the DOJ for failure to protect classified information. That is not the law. The law is that she failed to protect classified information and kept it on an unauthorized server. She should have been stripped of all security clearances and jailed. Intent was a bogus finding.
Weiner was convicted but what was in the Hillary emails on that laptop. FBI didn't say boo. Some investigation.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 13:09 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Most are for trespass and what little video has been released shows many were waved in.

And some were engaged in seditious conspiracy and obstruction of Congress.

indyjonesouthere: Did the FBI set up the "insurrection" like they set up the Whitmer kidnapping?

There's more than enough evidence to show that the insurrection was due to Trump supporters.

indyjonesouthere: Hillary's server disgrace did not require the FBI find lack of "intent" in order to not refer her to the DOJ for failure to protect classified information.

Actually, the law does require intent. See Gorin v. United States. And there is ample evidence that the classified information accidentally leaked, as it often does, into emails.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 14:55 (Reply)

The FBI knew protesters were coming as they had people on the inside AND all the cell phone data. Trump offered troops to the area and Pelosi refused. This was a set up. Typical FBI operation for political consumption.
The FBI investigating itself. Fat chance. There will be an independent prosecutor appointed whether now or the next administration.
The law does NOT require intent for the illegal release of classified information. You have never held a clearance have you. I have.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 15:09 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The FBI knew protesters were coming as they had people on the inside AND all the cell phone data.

Trump said so publicly. They didn't know there would be a concerted effort to take over the Congress.

indyjonesouthere: Trump offered troops to the area and Pelosi refused.

Pelosi has no authority over troops.

indyjonesouthere: The law does NOT require intent for the illegal release of classified information.

See Gorin v. United States. "the elements of scienter and bad faith which must be present". Mere sloppiness, for instance, would not be a criminal offense.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 15:17 (Reply)

What do you mean "take over Congress"? How does one take over Congress? Can you present evidence that there was a concerted effort to "take over Congress"? What, you simply grab Pelosi's gavel and podium, convene your new Congress, and start making law? That sounds like sedition. Has anyone been charged with sedition.

You're really flailing away.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 B. Hammer on 2022-05-04 15:45 (Reply)

B. Hammer: What do you mean "take over Congress"? How does one take over Congress?

Physically forcing their way into the Capitol, threatening to kill members of the Congress, and occupying the building to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power. This is something that is usually associated with unstable, developing countries.

B. Hammer: Can you present evidence that there was a concerted effort to "take over Congress"?

Over two hundred people have been found guilty, including for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of Congress.
https://media.cdn.lexipol.com/article-images/flagpole%20man.png

B. Hammer: Has anyone been charged with sedition.

Yes.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 15:57 (Reply)

A plea to seditious conspiracy, is not the same as being charged with sedition and convicted of sedition.

The one man that was convicted of threatening to kill members of Congress, had done so days after January 6th.

We are an unstable country.

Flail away.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 B. Hammer on 2022-05-04 16:55 (Reply)

B. Hammer: A plea to seditious conspiracy, is not the same as being charged with sedition and convicted of sedition.

Huh? You asked “Has anyone been charged with sedition.” Two people have already been charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is sedition. Others have been charged. See 18 U.S. Code § 2384.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 20:47 (Reply)

Pelosi has no authority to order troops but that is not what I said. Trump offered the troops and she refused the troops. A perfect setup.
Hillary is not off the hook...where is the FBI.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/07/05/like-clinton-others-were-extremely-careless-regarding-handling-classified-informationbut-they-got-pinched-n2188462

Up to 10 years in prison and a fine. Where is the DOJ?

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 17:02 (Reply)

Fact check: Trump repeats false claim that Pelosi rejected request for National Guard ahead of Jan. 6: A government memo about the events leading up to Jan. 6, statements from Pelosi’s office and the Pentagon and testimony from the former House sergeant-at-arms show Trump did not request 10,000 troops ahead of the rally.

Drew Hammill, Pelosi's spokesperson, told USA TODAY that Pelosi’s office was not consulted or contacted regarding any request for the National Guard ahead of Jan. 6, and he noted the speaker of the House does not have the power to reject that type of request.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 20:40 (Reply)

What indyjonesouthere was probably referring to was that the DNC refused to allow the FBI to access their servers and instead contracted with a private company, Crowdstrike, to do the investigation. If the FBI could not examine the servers their investigation was SEVERELY limited. In other words, the DNC got the investigation, and almost certainly the result, it paid for.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2022-05-04 12:46 (Reply)

Indeed, and there is a current WND piece today that goes over the entire russia, russia, russia, hoax. NONE of the data was real and it was all made up. It seems Durham is getting to the bottom of it.

WND piece...
https://www.wnd.com/2022/05/report-fbi-pursued-bulls-rumor-spy-trump-aide/

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 13:43 (Reply)

mudbug: What indyjonesouthere was probably referring to was that the DNC refused to allow the FBI to access their servers and instead contracted with a private company, Crowdstrike, to do the investigation.

It was the middle of the campaign, so the servers couldn't be taken off-line. If a business is burglarized, they don't require the owner to shut down, which would only compound the damage. However, mirrors of the servers were provided to the FBI. The FBI conducted their own, independent investigation. In any case, the Podesta hack is well-documented.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 14:31 (Reply)

"Russia interfered in the US election, including by hacking the DNC"

The only "proof" that Russian state actors "hacked" the DNC server came from Crowdstrike, not from an inspection of the servers by FBI. There is some evidence that the "attack" was an actual physical attack using a thumb drive.

What you cannot get away from and what you have yet to reckon with is that it was the Clinton campaign that, through, Perkins-Coie/Fusion GPS/Steele/

#3.1.1.2 SK on 2022-05-04 10:50 (Reply)

SK: The only "proof" that Russian state actors "hacked" the DNC server came from Crowdstrike, not from an inspection of the servers by FBI.

We have the exact URL used to phish the chair of the Clinton's presidential campaign (one of 4,000 used to target Democrats). It's not a secret.

#3.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:13 (Reply)

That is not proof of anything other than Jon Podesta's gullibility (and your own preconceived notions) nor is it verified by any US LE agency.

Don't care to reckon with the Clinton campaign's working with the Russians?

#3.1.1.2.1.1 SK on 2022-05-04 11:26 (Reply)

SK: That is not proof of anything other than Jon Podesta's gullibility (and your own preconceived notions) nor is it verified by any US LE agency.

Huh? Phishing to break into servers is a federal crime, and for a foreign government to do so is a violation of national sovereignty.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election

SK: Don't care to reckon with the Clinton campaign's working with the Russians?

The evidence is that Russia was attempting to help Trump and damage Clinton politically, that the Trump campaign welcomed the interference, and that contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents constituted a grave intelligence threat.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-select-committee-intelligence-united-states-senate-russian-active-measures

#3.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:33 (Reply)

zachriel has spread that lie for years. All while denying that the allegations against Trump were completely fabricated.

She won't relent on any of her lies, which is exactly why she should be booted. In fact, since she's in favor of censoring "misinformation" on social media, it would live up to her own espoused principles.

#3.1.1.2.2 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-05-04 12:09 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Special Counsel John Durham scored two major wins on Wednesday ahead of the criminal trial for ex-Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, as the judge ordered a key witness to testify and agreed to review memos the defense is trying to conceal with a claim of attorney-client privilege.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/john-durham-scores-two-major-court-wins-ahead-clinton

#3.1.1.2.2.1 Zachinoff on 2022-05-05 12:24 (Reply)

Meanwhile, UK Accuses Russia Of Using Trolls To Spread Disinformation

#3.1.2 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 10:33 (Reply)

Zach is a troll spreading disinformation. Actually it was the old communist USSR that coined the term disinformation. It now appears we have just installed our own Biden "disinformation" bureau. Funny how that cycle shifted 180 degrees from the old USSR to the US empire.

#3.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 11:03 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: disinformation

Are you saying the comment about the UK is incorrect? Or are you saying that the UK is incorrect? What makes the comment "disinformation"?

#3.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:16 (Reply)

The UK spreads more "disinformation" through NATO than Russia can keep up with. The NATO countries have run an exceptional propaganda campaign since their maidan campaign in 2014 and it continues to this day. Russia's propaganda machine can't hold a candle to the US and NATO. Boris still hasn't cleared up his own PR propaganda on his partygate problem.

#3.1.2.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 12:03 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The UK spreads more "disinformation" through NATO than Russia can keep up with.

So you are saying Russia does not run a troll farm used to interfere in open societies?

indyjonesouthere: Boris still hasn't cleared up his own PR propaganda on his partygate problem.

Johnson was fined per the law. How did you think it worked?

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 12:07 (Reply)

I'm sure Russia runs troll farms just as the US, Britian, and NATO run troll farms. Look how many trolls disappeared after Twitter was purchased.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 12:24 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Look how many trolls disappeared after Twitter was purchased.

Twitter hasn't been purchased yet.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 12:32 (Reply)

The Troll followers dropped considerably after the sale was announced.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 12:51 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The Troll followers dropped considerably after the sale was announced.

Twitter has had a long-running campaign against bots. The last major cull was in 2018. There have been recent drops in liberal twitter users, but that's probably because people on the political left may not trust Musk. However, we'd be happy to look at any actual evidence you have to support your claim.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 14:37 (Reply)

And how do you tell the difference between a twitter bot troll or a liberal twitter user? Perhaps the liberal bots are dropping out before discovery. The last cull was 2018? They are as poorly updated a voter rolls. Dead voters-dead bots.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 14:58 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: And how do you tell the difference between a twitter bot troll or a liberal twitter user?

It's your claim. It's up to you to support it.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 15:02 (Reply)

The drop in liberal twitter users was widely reported. Considering that lib twitter users are not bashful to tweet it is most likely they were not actual tweeters but bots that do not want to get exposed. Just like Joe Jr. and Hillary don't want to be exposed.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 15:14 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The drop in liberal twitter users was widely reported

Which we mentioned above. Many liberals don't trust Musk, so they dropped out of Twitter. That doesn't make them bots or trolls. Indeed, bots and trolls are less likely to drop out as Musk has indicated he may implement strategies that could encourage bots and trolls.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 15:19 (Reply)

Liberal users don't drop out and they don't get banned. Only Trump tweeters get banned or censored. You must be brand new to social media to have not noticed that.

#3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-05-04 16:37 (Reply)

The Progressive Legion is getting sloppy with its misdirection and annoyingly strident. Is the funding drying up? Quality is always the first thing sacrificed when that happens....

"False!" they shriek, labeling something that wasn't the point of the statement, but a small part of it. Did the Clinton Campaign pay a tech company to do something illegal? That was the question. And the Durham investigation is very likely to win its argument that these matters are not legally privileged.

Coincidentally, the Federal Election Committee has already ruled on the Clinton Campaign's efforts to hide its spending on Fusion GPS, which paid for the Steele dossier dirt digging, and the FEC has levied a fine that has not been contested.

#3.1.3 Aggie on 2022-05-04 10:48 (Reply)

Aggie: Did the Clinton Campaign pay a tech company to do something illegal?

The claim was that Durham alleged the tech company "infiltrated" servers, with "infiltrate" in quotes. It's been repeated endlessly in the right-wing echo chamber. If so, it would presumably be a crime. But it isn't so, is it?

#3.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:02 (Reply)

No. Once again, a sloppy, unconvincing mis-direction. I have already commented right here, today, about avoiding the dangers of crafted opinions presented as news.

Your own quotation says:

QUOTE:

"Durham wrote a court filing at the time saying the Clinton campaign paid a tech company to “infiltrate” Trump Tower’s and White House’s servers in order to establish a narrative of links between Trump and Russia."

The assertion, literally read, means that the Hillary For America campaign paid a tech company to infiltrate, etc. It does not say that they were infiltrated. You have mis-directed sloppily off you own quote.

I would surmise that the original quote is Durham being careful to show that he has evidence of criminal conspiracy. That might be why the HFA Campaign has been indicted for Grand Jury testimony - so they can chat about their emails under oath in front of the adults.

#3.1.3.1.1 Aggie on 2022-05-04 11:34 (Reply)

Aggie: The assertion, literally read, means that the Hillary For America campaign paid a tech company to infiltrate

But, that's a false statement. Putting "infiltrate" in quote marks indicates a direct quote of Durham. Durham did not make such an allegation, much less use the word "infiltrate." The data the tech company was using came from legal access.

#3.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 11:53 (Reply)

So after a whole page of comments, we finally get close to the bottom of it: You sloppily mis-directed a number of times to say the Durham indictment didn't make an accusation, or didn't say a crime wasn't committed, when all you really meant was, Durham didn't use 'that word, infiltrate'. What a sorry effort that is - why didn't you just say: Durham didn't use the word 'infiltrate'?

I notice you didn't say anything about the gist of the matter, the point of the article, which is that Durham has filed to accuse the Hillary For America campaign of having redacted documents that provide the dirty details of the Trump 'Russia Russia' conspiracy, which are not protected by attorney-client privilege. It is generally accepted that HFA is likely to lose this claim in court - which Durham already knows, having presented Fusion / media email evidence backing that up. And also that the direction the investigation is taking is towards a criminal conspiracy charge - you didn't say anything about that either.

I have to say, someone isn't getting value for money with these kinds of efforts.

Hey, guess what? Less than an hour ago, Durham's motion-to-compel was granted. The emails in question will now undergo 'in camera' review by the court.

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1 Aggie on 2022-05-04 12:59 (Reply)

Aggie: So after a whole page of comments, we finally get close to the bottom of it: You sloppily mis-directed a number of times to say the Durham indictment didn't make an accusation, or didn't say a crime wasn't committed, when all you really meant was, Durham didn't use 'that word, infiltrate'.

Um . . .

Z: Durham's motion never claims the tech company "infiltrated" the servers.
Z: The claim was that Durham alleged the tech company "infiltrated" servers, with "infiltrate" in quotes.
Z: Putting "infiltrate" in quote marks indicates a direct quote of Durham. Durham did not make such an allegation, much less use the word "infiltrate."

It's wrong to put in quotes something someone didn't say. But it's not just the quote. Infiltrating a server is a federal felony. Anyone reading that would be led to believe that the tech company was engaged in hacking. But that's not the allegation.

Aggie: Durham has filed to accuse the Hillary For America campaign of having redacted documents that provide the dirty details of the Trump 'Russia Russia' conspiracy, which are not protected by attorney-client privilege.

Think you mean subpoena, not accuse. Seems like a fishing expedition. Still, some information may be required after the judge reviews the documents.

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 14:50 (Reply)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-s-campaign-paid-tech-firm-to-infiltrate-trump-servers/ar-AATMBcX

'They spoke after Durham's filings revealed how Hillary Clinton's election campaign paid money to a tech firm to 'infiltrate' servers that were at Trump Tower, and later the White House.'

Hillary Clinton's election campaign paid money to a tech firm to 'infiltrate' servers that were at Trump Tower, and later the White House, according to a filing from Special Counsel John Durham

MSNBC: Unrepentant Right Wing Echo Chamber, known enabler of Conservative Causes - or at least 'maybe', according to your definitions.

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Aggie on 2022-05-04 15:50 (Reply)

Aggie: MSNBC: Unrepentant Right Wing Echo Chamber, known enabler of Conservative Causes - or at least 'maybe', according to your definitions.

The link is to MSN, not MSNBC. It's a pickup from the Daily Mail, a U.K. tabloid.

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 16:20 (Reply)

so: MSN publishes article from British conservative-leaning newspaper and becomes 'right wing echo chamber'. Got it.

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Aggie on 2022-05-04 17:52 (Reply)

Aggie: MSN publishes article from British conservative-leaning newspaper and becomes 'right wing echo chamber'. Got it.

Originated on the political right? ✔
Echoed by media on the political right? ✔

"Infiltrate" started with a quote from Kash Patel, which was then amplified by right-wing outlets who left out the attribution. That results in it being attributed to Durham, with the obvious but false reading that Durham is alleging computer hacking.

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-05 10:30 (Reply)

And yet according to the media bias experts, both the Daily Mail (slightly conservative bias, UK-based) and MSN (slightly more pronounced liberal bias in comparison) are both reputable news organizations.

So once again your misdirection is not in good faith. The 'infiltrate' quotation from Patel has been mis-attributed to Durham, although not explicitly. A nuanced view could say otherwise, though I wouldn't agree with it - I think it's sloppy journalism. But your 'right wing echo chamber' label is equally a false attribution, pretending to assert that this is the only place the attribution has been reported as news. You're wrong, admit it. Neither the DM nor MSN are thought of anywhere as being 'right wing'. They are characterized at the site I provided as "Reliable for news, but high in analysis / opinion content" Not Extremist

It's fun watching Durham work, isn't it? Tick, tock.

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Aggie on 2022-05-05 11:52 (Reply)

Aggie: And yet according to the media bias experts, both the Daily Mail (slightly conservative bias, UK-based) and MSN (slightly more pronounced liberal bias in comparison) are both reputable news organizations.

Bingo! As a Senior Counselor to the President once said, "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."

#3.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-05 12:29 (Reply)

As usual, truthful as far as it goes.

There wasn't really a need to infiltrate anything because the data Sussman was shopping around to "prove" the Trump-Alfa Bank connection wasjudged by the CIA to be at least incomplete, and probably fabricated.

#3.2 Christopher B on 2022-05-04 10:33 (Reply)

Christopher B: There wasn't really a need to infiltrate anything because the data Sussman was shopping around to "prove" the Trump-Alfa Bank connection was judged by the CIA to be at least incomplete, and probably fabricated.

Notably, "fabricated" is the conclusion of the author, not a stated conclusion of the CIA. It may be more a case of the data being the result of cherry-picking, not fabrication.

The reason why there is no allegation of "infiltration" is because the tech company had legal access to the data and would have had to analyze such data as part of their security mandate. The tech executive has not been charged.

Regardless, the repeated use of "infiltration" in quotes through the right-wing echo chamber, including by Fox News, is a falsehood.

#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 10:43 (Reply)

Regardless...

Keep trying (((Quibble-DickZ))).

#3.2.1.1 Zachinoff on 2022-05-04 11:03 (Reply)

False. Techno not only quoted straight from the document filed by Durham, he included a screen cap of the relevant section.

#3.2.1.2 Christopher B on 2022-05-04 15:51 (Reply)

Christopher B: False. Techno not only quoted straight from the document filed by Durham, he included a screen cap of the relevant section.

Which says: Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not "technically plausible," did not "withstand technical scrutiny," "contained gaps," "conflicted with {itself}," and was "user created" and not machine/tool generated. The Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.

Then says: The expert would further testify that several statements in that white paper — including its main conclusion that the “only plausible” explanation for the referenced [information] was a covert communications channel — are inaccurate and/or over-stated.

Not that it was a fabrication.

#3.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-04 16:16 (Reply)

You say in one breath it was user created, and in the next you say it wasn't fabricated.

Fascinating!

#3.2.1.2.1.1 Earle on 2022-05-05 10:15 (Reply)

Earle: You say in one breath it was user created, and in the next you say it wasn't fabricated.

User created is contrary to machine/tool generated, and refers to the compilation not the underlying data. It can mean the underlying data was analyzed manually by a user. It could result in cherry-picking, but that is not the same as fabricating the underlying data itself.

#3.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-05-05 10:24 (Reply)

(((Quibble-DickZ))) gotta quibble.

#3.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachinoff on 2022-05-05 20:35 (Reply)

Tucker exposes the Democrats’ desperate desire for war

I think the bigger problem is the opposite. The Biden junta desires to put Putin in a box, up to and including deposing him, and has hit on what it thinks will be the low cost (to the US) way to do this. This is congruent with Zelensky's aims up to a point but potentially could diverge, in that we might accept restricting Putin without restoring Ukrainian territory, while giving Zelensky the impression that we support not just return to the status quo ante but ejecting all Russian forces from Ukraine. This is clearly something we both desire to have happen but I'm not sure the Ukrainians have the means even with US/NATO aid to accomplish this end while Biden's outbursts have generally run beyond his more restrained comments on explicitly defending NATO territory.

#4 Christopher B on 2022-05-04 10:15 (Reply)

I believe it was just recently Sri Lanka that had a massive crop failure by switching to organic fertilizers...so what the hell lets do it too.

#5 BobJustBob on 2022-05-04 10:28 (Reply)

!!!Trigger Warning!!!

“The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to save that?” he wrote. “Well, then you should probably vote.” — Eric Swalwell aka The Chinese Spy-Fucker

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/05/04/swalwell-dragged-for-ridiculously-false-claim-that-republicans-want-to-ban-interracial-marriage-1233710/

#6 Zachinoff on 2022-05-04 11:19 (Reply)

Must be over the target today. There are Zachriel droppings all over the comment section.

#7 rj on 2022-05-04 12:38 (Reply)

The universe could stop expanding 'remarkably soon', study suggests: It's big enough as it is!

A Tyranny of the Minority. St. Vincent College seeks to torpedo one of academia’s few remaining jewels" The STUPID is STRONG in these ones...

Goucher College professor: ‘We are headed to hell’ if Elon Musk’s Twitter isn’t regulated: I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO not bummed for this idiot.

Queen Hillary Attends MET Gala Maskless While Masked Black Servant Attends To Her…
Bad optics! (And an ugly face...)

#8 Sam L. on 2022-05-04 14:20 (Reply)

Kodachadri Trek
Kodachadri Trek is situated in the district of Shimoga, Karnataka. It is the 10th highest peak of western ghat. Total distance of this trek is 11 km and 1,343m above sea level. You can enjoy the trek from July to September. The main attraction of this trek is Hidlumane fall. Trekking level is easy to moderate.

#9 Arati (Link) on 2022-05-05 21:37 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, May 4. 2022

Wednesday morning links