At 2:49 p.m., it looks a lot brighter, but it was still quite overcast and beginning to rain:
October is the most beautiful month in Madison, but some of its days are like this, and the gently filtered light feels quite nice to me.
October is the most beautiful month in Madison, but some of its days are like this, and the gently filtered light feels quite nice to me.Write about whatever you want in the comments.
पोस्ट्स
२१७ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 217 पैकी 201 – 217"Bottom line: documented interference happened,"
Bottom line is that you made a claim about the DNC hack, and it turns out that the claim is not true, there is no actual evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, and in fact, the Democrats will not allow the server to be examined by law enforcement, which is very convenient.
So instead of getting into specifics, because whenever you do that, you end up getting burned, you fall back on the consensus of media outlets and the Democrats, and their appointees in the intelligence community, some of whom are being indicted themselves, and are clearly guilty of lying to Congress about Russiagate.
Yet that lying doesn't bother you.
Mueller should have known that his whole investigation was predicated on a lie, because it's plainly documented by the notes of the CIA director, that the CIA knew it was all a hoax within a day of the accusations appearing.
"So the conclusion wasn’t based on the Steele dossier or anonymous media claims — it came from technical forensics,"
You just repeated the claim about "technical forensics" after being shown it was not true. If you want to provide evidence that technical forensics by law enforcement was done on the DNC server, please do.
Evidence that the Wikileaks dump came from the Russians was based on "technical forensics" would also be welcome.
You are the one making all of these claims, don't be surprised when you get a lot of different pushback.
'
Once again, I ask you, which of these claims of yours were actually based on "technical forensics" on the server, because it wasn't Wikileaks, and it wasn't the DNC server.
Jaq, the Steele dossier and the DNC hack are two different things. The DNC breach was attributed to Russian GRU units through forensic evidence — identical malware, command servers, and coding patterns seen in other GRU attacks across Europe. The FBI got full forensic images from the DNC systems, which is standard in cyber cases — physical hardware isn’t needed when you have verified copies. That’s why multiple independent firms and later the DOJ were able to trace specific GRU officers and servers, long before the Steele dossier even existed. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it — those forensic details are public in the 2018 DOJ indictment.
ANd yet....
What the FBI / other sources say
However, there are caveats and conflicting statements:
Former FBI Director James Comey testified that the FBI did not get direct access to the DNC’s servers or hardware itself (i.e., physical machines) and instead relied on data provided by CrowdStrike. —JSIS, PolitiFact, AP News
Some reporting indicates that the FBI requested access to the servers multiple times and was rebuffed or delayed by the DNC. —WIRED, PolitiFact
In addition, though forensics were shared, some observers question whether complete and independent chain-of-custody access by the FBI was achieved. For example:
“The U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded Russia was behind the hack … but they have yet to make their evidence public.” - PBS
Also: “The disclosure that CrowdStrike found no evidence that alleged Russian hackers exfiltrated any data from the DNC server raises a critical question…” - RealClearInvestigations
So basically, what Crowdstrike provided to the FBI was the "analysis" of the data, done by them, and they had a large monetary stake in pleasing the Democrats with their conclusions, which is exactly what I said.
Your problem is that you trust the media, but they are lying to you, non stop. This DNC hack story simply doesn't hold up, which we have shown you many times here.
Do you think that the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation" as all of those "intelligence agents" strongly implied, while never making the specific claim?
For bbq, go to the best. Kieth’s or Perrini ranch in Buffalo Gap TX. For meat, if you want flavor, a marinated flank steak wins. For a crowd pleaser, a rare standing rib roast.
Jaq, this is exactly the goalpost-shifting I was referring to earlier:
Russia didn’t hack the DNC.
Even if they did, we can’t trust the FBI or CIA.
Anyway, Democrats lie and the media covers for them.
Therefore, everything about Russian interference is a hoax.
That’s circular and unfalsifiable—it’s built on distrust, not evidence.
I’ve already provided what you asked for: documented forensic links—the 2018 DOJ indictment of 12 GRU officers, matching infrastructure, identical malware signatures, and command-and-control servers.
You’re no longer disputing the technical evidence; you’re rejecting the legitimacy of everyone who gathered it.
Let’s go through it one more time: the FBI didn’t need the physical server—they had verified forensic images, the same data routinely used in court cases and military counterintelligence.
The 2018 DOJ indictment lays out in detail the exact servers, IP addresses, and command tools used by Russian GRU officers to breach the DNC and route data through intermediaries to WikiLeaks. That’s not media spin—that’s public court documentation.
If you’re saying all of that was fabricated, then you’re claiming every forensic examiner, judge, and intelligence agency faked evidence in coordination.
So I’ll ask again: what’s your evidence for that extraordinary claim?
Skepticism is healthy—but denial without an evidence-based alternative isn’t skepticism; it’s faith in the absence of proof.
Why are people arguing with this idiot?
If it wasn’t Russian intelligence, who carried out the intrusion and how do you know?
How about you prove there was an actual intrusion? You do that, then we might discuss who? Crowdstrike never allowed independent verification of their claims even by officials. Crowdstrike never provided “concrete evidence” of an intrusion to anyone. What Crowdstrike effectively did was claim some alarms they created went off and that is it.
Ever heard the term “false alarm”. Even granting them sincerity, the probability of a false alarm is high. Their refusal to allow anyone to check their alarms or provide evidence beyond their alarm suggests they aren’t even sincere.
Jim at, slow day. It is fun how easy it is to poke holes in DFC’s arguments with just a few searches. It is like they think you can’t constrain web searches to a period of time outside their planted lies.
I’ll leave it here for now — partly because scrolling through all this is a chore, and partly because we’re just circling back to the same unsupported claims.
The bottom line hasn’t changed: every major intelligence agency, multiple independent cybersecurity firms, and a federal indictment all point to the same source — Russian GRU units.
“CrowdStrike wouldn’t let anyone check” isn’t a rebuttal to the evidence already presented and confirmed across agencies.
So unless there’s verifiable proof contradicting those findings — not speculation about motives or “false alarms,” but actual counter-evidence — there’s really nothing new to debate.
I appreciate the exchange, but we’ve reached the point where it’s conspiracy stew on repeat. I get that some like it hot and some like it cold — but I’m not much into leftovers, and this batch is about nine days old.
What Democrats did to Trump and his supporters makes even the most unsupported claims of Russian interference and collusion look like a distraction at best. The level of un-American behavior against Trump was baldly treasonous.
But guys, he "feels" that he is right!
Yep, the government did charge 12 foreign intelligence officers. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/628773789/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-unveils-new-hacking-charges-in-dnc-case How convenient to charge people and keep the charges open forever when you know they won't show up for trial.
IIRC, the government also charged some other Russians with election interference who weren't government officials- and at least one (maybe more then 1) showed up for trial. Rather then embarrassing themselves in front of a jury- the government dropped all the charges.
OMG, Chuck is still declaring the Russian Collusion Hoax was real. What a retard
I taught a cooking class three weeks ago in which we made beef bourguignon (Julia Child's recipe). The star ingredient? A beautiful prime chuck roast. (I only got the prime as it was on sale)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.