RussiaGate

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have a question about this. So... ... ... when WikiLeaks secretly sent Don Jr a password over Twitter to a website putintrump.org, what in the actual fuck was Don Jr thinking? He then sent a message "it worked" and so that made him guilty of violating the law. What the heck was he thinking with that, too, that his father was going to protect him from prosecution? He is fortunate that the federal prosecutors used discretion, but unlike the prosecutors, I believe the website went public around Nov 1st, 2016 and hacking into it occurred September 2016 and so that foreknowledge of the website content for the campaign was probably worth $5K or more...just saying...

"..., although it was sent to him individually, had also been posted by WikiLeaks to its public Twitter account..."

In other words, it wasn't a secret at that point. He didn't get advance access.

Legally and ethically, why would that matter? Suppose 10,000 people saw it and 200 people tried to use the cracked password. None of them should be on the site with the password. It's like, say Jan 6th insurrection, 200 people spreading poop on walls after trespassing doesn't excuse each individual spreading poop. The next question is about benefit...I think seeing the site is a benefit to the campaign. They can change strategy or respond to specifics. I don't think it matters that 100 or 1000 other people are also illegally getting the info.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump suggests Clinton campaign staffers should be put to death — and demands 'reparations'

Former president Donald Trump issued a statement Saturday suggesting that unnamed members of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign staff should be put to death.

"The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia," Trump said in the statement from his Save America PAC. "This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this."

Trump was responding to allegations put forth by Durham in a court filing this week.

"Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to 'infiltrate' servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an 'inference' and "narrative' to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says," Fox News reported Saturday. "Durham filed a motion on Feb. 11 focused on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussman has pleaded not guilty."

Durham is a tool and this will go nowhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a question about this. So... ... ... when WikiLeaks secretly sent Don Jr a password over Twitter to a website putintrump.org, what in the actual fuck was Don Jr thinking? He then sent a message "it worked" and so that made him guilty of violating the law. What the heck was he thinking with that, too, that his father was going to protect him from prosecution? He is fortunate that the federal prosecutors used discretion, but unlike the prosecutors, I believe the website went public around Nov 1st, 2016 and hacking into it occurred September 2016 and so that foreknowledge of the website content for the campaign was probably worth $5K or more...just saying...

"..., although it was sent to him individually, had also been posted by WikiLeaks to its public Twitter account..."

In other words, it wasn't a secret at that point. He didn't get advance access.

Legally and ethically, why would that matter? Suppose 10,000 people saw it and 200 people tried to use the cracked password. None of them should be on the site with the password. It's like, say Jan 6th insurrection, 200 people spreading poop on walls after trespassing doesn't excuse each individual spreading poop. The next question is about benefit...I think seeing the site is a benefit to the campaign. They can change strategy or respond to specifics. I don't think it matters that 100 or 1000 other people are also illegally getting the info.

If it wasn't an insider secret it isn't insider trading. It doesn't matter how many actually looked, only that it was published.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have a question about this. So... ... ... when WikiLeaks secretly sent Don Jr a password over Twitter to a website putintrump.org, what in the actual fuck was Don Jr thinking? He then sent a message "it worked" and so that made him guilty of violating the law. What the heck was he thinking with that, too, that his father was going to protect him from prosecution? He is fortunate that the federal prosecutors used discretion, but unlike the prosecutors, I believe the website went public around Nov 1st, 2016 and hacking into it occurred September 2016 and so that foreknowledge of the website content for the campaign was probably worth $5K or more...just saying...

"..., although it was sent to him individually, had also been posted by WikiLeaks to its public Twitter account..."

In other words, it wasn't a secret at that point. He didn't get advance access.

Legally and ethically, why would that matter? Suppose 10,000 people saw it and 200 people tried to use the cracked password. None of them should be on the site with the password. It's like, say Jan 6th insurrection, 200 people spreading poop on walls after trespassing doesn't excuse each individual spreading poop. The next question is about benefit...I think seeing the site is a benefit to the campaign. They can change strategy or respond to specifics. I don't think it matters that 100 or 1000 other people are also illegally getting the info.

If it wasn't an insider secret it isn't insider trading. It doesn't matter how many actually looked, only that it was published.

Not true.

Unauthorized access is when someone gains access to a website, program, server, service, or other system using someone else's account or other methods. For example, if someone kept guessing a password or username for an account that was not theirs until they gained access, it is considered unauthorized access.

If you have gained unauthorized access to any account or service, it is considered illegal in all parts of the world.

What is Unauthorized Access?

Computer dictionary definition for what unauthorized access means including related links, information, and terms.

www.computerhope.com

 

[ZiprHead]

But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news — the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Trump and his allies.

Upon close inspection, these narratives are often based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation.

Citing this filing, Fox News inaccurately declared that Durham had said he had evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign had paid a technology company to "infiltrate" a White House server. The Washington Examiner claimed that this all meant there had been spying on Trump's White House office. And when mainstream publications held back, Trump and his allies began shaming the news media.

The conservative media also skewed what the filing said. For example, Durham's filing never used the word "infiltrate." And it never claimed that Joffe's company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data — so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet — came from Barack Obama's presidency.

"What Trump and some news outlets are saying is wrong," said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, lawyers for Dagon. "The cybersecurity researchers were investigating malware in the White House, not spying on the Trump campaign, and to our knowledge, all of the data they used was nonprivate DNS data from before Trump took office."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a question about this. So... ... ... when WikiLeaks secretly sent Don Jr a password over Twitter to a website putintrump.org, what in the actual fuck was Don Jr thinking? He then sent a message "it worked" and so that made him guilty of violating the law. What the heck was he thinking with that, too, that his father was going to protect him from prosecution? He is fortunate that the federal prosecutors used discretion, but unlike the prosecutors, I believe the website went public around Nov 1st, 2016 and hacking into it occurred September 2016 and so that foreknowledge of the website content for the campaign was probably worth $5K or more...just saying...

"..., although it was sent to him individually, had also been posted by WikiLeaks to its public Twitter account..."

In other words, it wasn't a secret at that point. He didn't get advance access.

Legally and ethically, why would that matter? Suppose 10,000 people saw it and 200 people tried to use the cracked password. None of them should be on the site with the password. It's like, say Jan 6th insurrection, 200 people spreading poop on walls after trespassing doesn't excuse each individual spreading poop. The next question is about benefit...I think seeing the site is a benefit to the campaign. They can change strategy or respond to specifics. I don't think it matters that 100 or 1000 other people are also illegally getting the info.

If it wasn't an insider secret it isn't insider trading. It doesn't matter how many actually looked, only that it was published.

Not true.

Unauthorized access is when someone gains access to a website, program, server, service, or other system using someone else's account or other methods. For example, if someone kept guessing a password or username for an account that was not theirs until they gained access, it is considered unauthorized access.

If you have gained unauthorized access to any account or service, it is considered illegal in all parts of the world.

What is Unauthorized Access?

Computer dictionary definition for what unauthorized access means including related links, information, and terms.

www.computerhope.com

I was talking about insider trading, not unauthorized access.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have a question about this. So... ... ... when WikiLeaks secretly sent Don Jr a password over Twitter to a website putintrump.org, what in the actual fuck was Don Jr thinking? He then sent a message "it worked" and so that made him guilty of violating the law. What the heck was he thinking with that, too, that his father was going to protect him from prosecution? He is fortunate that the federal prosecutors used discretion, but unlike the prosecutors, I believe the website went public around Nov 1st, 2016 and hacking into it occurred September 2016 and so that foreknowledge of the website content for the campaign was probably worth $5K or more...just saying...

"..., although it was sent to him individually, had also been posted by WikiLeaks to its public Twitter account..."

In other words, it wasn't a secret at that point. He didn't get advance access.

Legally and ethically, why would that matter? Suppose 10,000 people saw it and 200 people tried to use the cracked password. None of them should be on the site with the password. It's like, say Jan 6th insurrection, 200 people spreading poop on walls after trespassing doesn't excuse each individual spreading poop. The next question is about benefit...I think seeing the site is a benefit to the campaign. They can change strategy or respond to specifics. I don't think it matters that 100 or 1000 other people are also illegally getting the info.

If it wasn't an insider secret it isn't insider trading. It doesn't matter how many actually looked, only that it was published.

Not true.

Unauthorized access is when someone gains access to a website, program, server, service, or other system using someone else's account or other methods. For example, if someone kept guessing a password or username for an account that was not theirs until they gained access, it is considered unauthorized access.

If you have gained unauthorized access to any account or service, it is considered illegal in all parts of the world.

What is Unauthorized Access?

Computer dictionary definition for what unauthorized access means including related links, information, and terms.

www.computerhope.com

I was talking about insider trading, not unauthorized access.

You were using the example of insider trading to justify unauthorized access to a website.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a question about this. So... ... ... when WikiLeaks secretly sent Don Jr a password over Twitter to a website putintrump.org, what in the actual fuck was Don Jr thinking? He then sent a message "it worked" and so that made him guilty of violating the law. What the heck was he thinking with that, too, that his father was going to protect him from prosecution? He is fortunate that the federal prosecutors used discretion, but unlike the prosecutors, I believe the website went public around Nov 1st, 2016 and hacking into it occurred September 2016 and so that foreknowledge of the website content for the campaign was probably worth $5K or more...just saying...

"..., although it was sent to him individually, had also been posted by WikiLeaks to its public Twitter account..."

In other words, it wasn't a secret at that point. He didn't get advance access.

Legally and ethically, why would that matter? Suppose 10,000 people saw it and 200 people tried to use the cracked password. None of them should be on the site with the password. It's like, say Jan 6th insurrection, 200 people spreading poop on walls after trespassing doesn't excuse each individual spreading poop. The next question is about benefit...I think seeing the site is a benefit to the campaign. They can change strategy or respond to specifics. I don't think it matters that 100 or 1000 other people are also illegally getting the info.

If it wasn't an insider secret it isn't insider trading. It doesn't matter how many actually looked, only that it was published.

Not true.

Unauthorized access is when someone gains access to a website, program, server, service, or other system using someone else's account or other methods. For example, if someone kept guessing a password or username for an account that was not theirs until they gained access, it is considered unauthorized access.

If you have gained unauthorized access to any account or service, it is considered illegal in all parts of the world.

What is Unauthorized Access?

Computer dictionary definition for what unauthorized access means including related links, information, and terms.

www.computerhope.com

I was talking about insider trading, not unauthorized access.

You were using the example of insider trading to justify unauthorized access to a website.

I was saying the action wasn't insider trading if it was based on using a published password to access a website with the information.

I was not addressing whether it might otherwise be criminal.

 

[Copernicus]

Lie by omission.

Rubbish. Failing to answer a question that is never raised or relevant to the purpose of a meeting is not lying by omission. Even the Durham summary of the meeting clearly states "...Baker said that Sussman did not specify that he was representing a client regarding the matter, nor did Baker ask him if he was representing a client. Baker said it did not seem like Sussman was representing a client..." In fact, Sussman has always maintained that he was not there on behalf of the Clinton campaign or any other client and that he was only reporting facts that he felt the FBI should know about. Any responsible citizen would have done the same, whether they were involved with the DNC or not. Sussman's disclosure was unrelated to his firm's representation of the Clinton campaign.

Garbage!

The Durham investigation into whether Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman lied to the FBI was brought up earlier in this thread because it had a bearing on Russiagate. Barbos seemed to think he could get some leverage out of Durham's flimsy case. The jury finally got the case for deliberation, and, as expected, returned a "Not Guilty" verdict after all the drama from Republicans trying to find some way to discredit charges of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia. The news is very anti-climactic and won't likely be reported prominently either by Fox News or Russian media, both of which had made a lot of noise about the case months ago.


Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann acquitted of lying to the FBI

 

[ZiprHead]

By a unanimous not guilty verdict. It was a BS case to begin with.

Ninja'd by Copernicus.

 

[Elixir]

B-b-but barbos sez “garbage”!

How can anyone not be convinced by such compelling argument?

 

[ZiprHead]

King Baby reacts to Durham failure

I take it that's a fake.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[blastula]

The Humiliation of John Durham

Hired by Bill Barr to investigate the Trump investigators, the prosecutor had little to show for his work even before his defeat in court yesterday.

www.thebulwark.com

Nobody to blame but himself.

 

[Oleg]

The Humiliation of John Durham

Hired by Bill Barr to investigate the Trump investigators, the prosecutor had little to show for his work even before his defeat in court yesterday.

www.thebulwark.com

Nobody to blame but himself.

Well, he got this admission. The FBI knew it was all bullshit, but still ran with the Russia hoax. It offered $1M for dirt on Trump. And it knowingly lied to get a FISA warrant. Maybe there is a deep state.

 

[Patooka]

The FBI knew it was all bullshit, but still ran with the Russia hoax.

This "hoax" as you put it lead to numerous convictions, enough assets seized in forfeiture to pay for itself and had the unanimous support of a Republican run Senate. It's a fuckton more legitimate than Benghazi or Hunter's laptop or the numerous other Q-tard conspiracies you believe in.

 

[Oleg]

This "hoax" as you put it lead to numerous convictions

No one was convicted of Russia collusion. No one. Not one person.

It's a fuckton more legitimate than Benghazi or Hunter's laptop or the numerous other Q-tard conspiracies you believe in.

The FBI offered a foreigner $1M of taxyayer money for dirt on an elected US president. Then lied to a court to get a warrant. And you're cool with that?

 

[Copernicus]

This "hoax" as you put it lead to numerous convictions

No one was convicted of Russia collusion. No one. Not one person.

Oleg, why do you make such a ridiculous claim? Just to stir up reactions from people? You know as well as we do that there is no crime called "collusion", so nobody could possibly be convicted of it. Collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government is well-documented and not really in question here, but there are real crimes related to that collusion which have led to numerous convictions. This has been explained to you repeatedly in the past, but that doesn't mean that you'll change your tune.

It's a fuckton more legitimate than Benghazi or Hunter's laptop or the numerous other Q-tard conspiracies you believe in.

The FBI offered a foreigner $1M of taxyayer money for dirt on an elected US president. Then lied to a court to get a warrant. And you're cool with that?

If you were so anxious to proclaim the Russia-Trump collusion charge a hoax because of a lack of convictions, how can you now rush to judgment on unproven charges before the trial is even over? Auten has already contradicted the claim under oath that Danchenko lied to the FBI. Durham has yet to prove that he did.

See:

FBI supervisor describes learning he was in crosshairs of Durham probe​

 

[laughing dog]

This "hoax" as you put it lead to numerous convictions

No one was convicted of Russia collusion. No one. Not one person.

Oleg, why do you make such a ridiculous claim? Just to stir up reactions from people? You know as well as we do that there is no crime called "collusion", so nobody could possibly be convicted of it. Collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government is well-documented and not really in question here, but there are real crimes related to that collusion which have led to numerous convictions. This has been explained to you repeatedly in the past, but that doesn't mean that you'll change your tune.

It's a fuckton more legitimate than Benghazi or Hunter's laptop or the numerous other Q-tard conspiracies you believe in.

The FBI offered a foreigner $1M of taxyayer money for dirt on an elected US president. Then lied to a court to get a warrant. And you're cool with that?

If you were so anxious to proclaim the Russia-Trump collusion charge a hoax because of a lack of convictions, how can you now rush to judgment on unproven charges before the trial is even over? Auten has already contradicted the claim under oath that Danchenko lied to the FBI. Durham has yet to prove that he did.

See:

FBI supervisor describes learning he was in crosshairs of Durham probe​

You know his positions are symptoms of TDS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This "hoax" as you put it lead to numerous convictions

No one was convicted of Russia collusion. No one. Not one person.

It's a fuckton more legitimate than Benghazi or Hunter's laptop or the numerous other Q-tard conspiracies you believe in.

The FBI offered a foreigner $1M of taxyayer money for dirt on an elected US president. Then lied to a court to get a warrant. And you're cool with that?

Goalposts!

He pointed out the investigation had turned up a lot. Just because one lead didn't doesn't make the whole thing bogus.