Trump goes Mob Boss

[Mountain Man]

On the one side, you have reputable, long-standing papers of record that occasionally get news wrong...

"Occasionally".

[Sam]

Bingo. They don't have the redacted portions of the draft report. They don't even have a final report. They have, in fact, no direct evidence to prove Russian hacking.

In other words, the entire Russian hacking narrative is based entirely on a preliminary report, the whole of which the FBI has never even been allowed to see! To put this another way, it would be impossible for the FBI to prove Russian hacking in a court of law because they have zero evidence to prove the charges. The FBI admitted as much in a court filing which is a pretty stunning admission.

You keep suggesting that the FBI had access to other information, but unlike me, you have yet to provide a single source to support your assertions. In fact, when I hunted down one of your earlier claims -- that Comey testified that the FBI had forensic images of the servers -- it turned out to be false. So you'll understand if I don't simply take you at your word.

No, you just turned up the wrong Comey testimony. But since you don't understand what the forensic data is, maybe even what forensic imaging entails, it's pointless to argue with you about it. You claimed that the DOJ brief said that the FBI never had anything beyond the draft report. The DOJ brief does not say that. You (again) have extrapolated beyond what something actually is in order to produce something that is either not known or not true. Here, as before, we land in the "not true" arena but I know that it's not going to do anything to change your blinkered opinion, as we're already well into conspiracy land. US intelligence agencies and numerous other security firms have all agreed, based on their own analyses, that Russian operatives are responsible for the hack.

--Sam

[oxmixmudd]

Then why do they feel such a need to continually concoct false stories? If he is even a tenth as bad as you say (and I agree, he'll never be thought of as a saint by any means), then the truth should more than suffice. But by constantly fabricating stuff they've destroyed their credibility and if Trump ever did do something as heinous as you imagine that he does day in and day out, nobody will listen to them.

The idea they are 'concocting' stories is a reflection on spending a bit too much time reading the non-news conspiracy sites and sources. The majority of what I see from those sources is fairly easily debunked, from AGW, to conspiracy theories about whistleblower reporting form changes, or they are just differences of opinion about the facts, usually seen through the eye of a believer in some sort of deep state or massive liberal conspiracy - a lot like what we see in YEC 'science'. And of course, as it is any time one is dealing with that sort of mindset, all it takes is one story, one event, to cement the belief and negate 100's of other data points where that particular mindset is actually shown to be false.


Jim

[Sam]

Then why do they feel such a need to continually concoct false stories? If he is even a tenth as bad as you say (and I agree, he'll never be thought of as a saint by any means), then the truth should more than suffice. But by constantly fabricating stuff they've destroyed their credibility and if Trump ever did do something as heinous as you imagine that he does day in and day out, nobody will listen to them.

What was fabricated by media outlets?

[Mountain Man]

The Federalist isn't apologizing for running a false story that implied a recent and secret change to allow second-hand information in a complaint, it's doubling-down.

Again, not a false story. Very first line of the article:

"The Intelligence Community Inspector General released a statement admitting the office changed its forms for whistleblowers between May 2018 and August 2019, as The Federalist first reported."

The ICIG's recently press release says the change was made in late May 2018, well within the timeframe reported by the Federalist, so the story is demonstrably factual.

[oxmixmudd]

Because every single time that the MSM just "happens" to get it wrong it is always anti-Trump. Always. No acceptions.

If it were just a case of making mistakes, being rushed or relying on unreliable sources then statistically speaking it would be virtually impossible for some of those errors not to paint Trump in a favorable light.

But that just does not happen.

I think your accounting is probably biased by you general opinion of the MSM.

1) I would guess a good percentage of the 'stories' you are counting as 'wrong' are not, in fact, actually wrong
2) I would guess you are calculating your 'statistics' using data filtered in such a way as to magnify the effect.


Jim

[rogue06]

What was fabricated by media outlets?

Seriously?

Do you want that list in alphabetical, categorical or chronological order?

Let's just start with the entire "Collusion Delusion" which a significant number in the MSM are still pushing even after the Mueller Report came out thoroughly debunking it.

[rogue06]

I think your accounting is probably biased by you general opinion of the MSM.

1) I would guess a good percentage of the 'stories' you are counting as 'wrong' are not, in fact, actually wrong
2) I would guess you are calculating your 'statistics' using data filtered in such a way as to magnify the effect.


Jim

So are you abandoning finding a story about Trump that mistakenly painted Trump in a good light? Maybe you need Diogenes' lantern. Anywho... it looks like you quickly switched gears here and decided on claiming that the MSM hasn't made a steady serious of erroneous reports that all just happen to be anti-Trump.

[oxmixmudd]

Again, not a false story. Very first line of the article:

"The Intelligence Community Inspector General released a statement admitting the office changed its forms for whistleblowers between May 2018 and August 2019, as The Federalist first reported."

The ICIG's recently press release says the change was made in late May 2018, well within the timeframe reported by the Federalist, so the story is demonstrably factual.

Ok - this is fairly simple. The change was in May of 2018 - almost 1 and 1/2 years before the Whistleblower complaint. There is no possible correlation between the two events. The entire federalist report and thrust is to try to correlate the two events to support a conspiracy theory. That correlation doesn't exist, ergo they were WRONG, there is no conspiracy.

The fact you can't admit that shows your own dogged bias MM. There is nothing more to this. There was no conspiracy. The whole crazed thrust of all this reporting was WRONG. The fact they gave a range of dates was completely ignored by you and everyone else as it relates to glomming onto the conspiracy and is not a 'get out of jail free' card after the fact. If they had reported the actual date of the change rather than a date range that included a 'suspicious time frame', there would never have been a foundation for the conspiracy theory in the first place.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

So are you abandoning finding a story about Trump that mistakenly painted Trump in a good light? Maybe you need Diogenes' lantern. Anywho... it looks like you quickly switched gears here and decided on claiming that the MSM hasn't made a steady serious of erroneous reports that all just happen to be anti-Trump.

I never started. Trump has earned his reputation. The danger to honest outlets is reporting something consistent with his reputation and past actions that is not true. Trump would have to completely change nearly everyting about himself for years before he would be in danger of getting accidentally wrong positive reporting. The only place I would expect a story that mistakenly painted him in a good light would be on sources unabashedly white washing his moral failings like breitbart.

The problem here Rogue is you and others can't accept that Trump deserves and asks for constantly the negative reporting he gets. He gets negative reporting because he does bad things - and that is exactly as it should be. Only biased rags can ignore that and recast his bad deeds as good, much as Pravda in the days of the Soviet Union.

The test then is this: when he does something legitimately good does it get reported. And the answer is, yes it does.


Jim

[Sam]

Seriously?

Do you want that list in alphabetical, categorical or chronological order?

Let's just start with the entire "Collusion Delusion" which a significant number in the MSM are still pushing even after the Mueller Report came out thoroughly debunking it.

where "collusion" appears as a legal term, it is more or less identical to "coordination".

Now Trump said that the "real" collusion was between Clinton and Ukraine, ostensibly because the Clinton campaign solicited investigative materials into Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. That was false but it's exactly what Trump did when he solicited Russia's help to "find" the Clinton emails and what he did when he solicited an investigation into Biden recently. And, as the Mueller report also notes, the Trump campaign was aware of and receptive to the Russian interference.

So by Trump's own definition and standard, he was neck-deep in collusion.

But you can't even manage to see the obvious logical chain that hoists him (and all the pseduo-conservative outlets that followed him from "no connection" to "no contact" to "no collusion" to "see? no coordination!") by his own petard.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Ok - this is fairly simple. The change was in May of 2018 - almost 1 and 1/2 years before the Whistleblower complaint. There is no possible correlation between the two events. The entire federalist report and thrust is to try to correlate the two events to support a conspiracy theory. That correlation doesn't exist, ergo they were WRONG, there is no conspiracy.

The fact you can't admit that shows your own dogged bias MM. There is nothing more to this. There was no conspiracy. The whole crazed thrust of all this reporting was WRONG. The fact they gave a range of dates was completely ignored by you and everyone else as it relates to glomming onto the conspiracy and is not a 'get out of jail free' card after the fact. If they had reported the actual date of the change rather than a date range that included a 'suspicious time frame', there would never have been a foundation for the conspiracy theory in the first place.


Jim

Um...

Source: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge

, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

where "collusion" appears as a legal term, it is more or less identical to "coordination".

Now Trump said that the "real" collusion was between Clinton and Ukraine, ostensibly because the Clinton campaign solicited investigative materials into Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. That was false but it's exactly what Trump did when he solicited Russia's help to "find" the Clinton emails and what he did when he solicited an investigation into Biden recently. And, as the Mueller report also notes, the Trump campaign was aware of and receptive to the Russian interference.

So by Trump's own definition and standard, he was neck-deep in collusion.

But you can't even manage to see the obvious logical chain that hoists him (and all the pseduo-conservative outlets that followed him from "no connection" to "no contact" to "no collusion" to "see? no coordination!") by his own petard.

--Sam

New from roguetech labs & bait shop:
00000000000000ab000-00aaaa.jpg
For those who are still incapable of accepting that there was no collusion.

[Mountain Man]

No, you just turned up the wrong Comey testimony.

Since you didn't bother to provide a link in your earlier post, I had to guess which testimony you were referring to. Naturally, I searched for any assertion by Comey that they were given images of the servers, and I couldn't find anything. But from the link you finally did provide, this this looks like the relevant portion:

HURD: Have you been able to -- when did the DNC provide access for -- to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?

COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system.

HURD: Director Rogers, did the NSA ever get access to the DNC hardware?

ROGERS: The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job...

So that's what Comey testified, which you notice he never said they were given images of the servers, which was your claim. Rather, CrowdStrike "shared with us their forensics", which is (I suspect deliberately) vague, and Comey never says what those "forensics" actually are. But thanks to the FBI's filing in the Roger Stone case, we now know, definitively, that the "forensics" in question were a redacted draft report provided by the DNC, and according to the court filing, that was the only information given up by CrowdStrike to the FBI. From the filing, "Although the reports produced to the defendant are marked 'draft,' counsel for the DNC and DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced."

Wow!

[Sam]

Ok - this is fairly simple. The change was in May of 2018 - almost 1 and 1/2 years before the Whistleblower complaint. There is no possible correlation between the two events. The entire federalist report and thrust is to try to correlate the two events to support a conspiracy theory. That correlation doesn't exist, ergo they were WRONG, there is no conspiracy.

The fact you can't admit that shows your own dogged bias MM. There is nothing more to this. There was no conspiracy. The whole crazed thrust of all this reporting was WRONG. The fact they gave a range of dates was completely ignored by you and everyone else as it relates to glomming onto the conspiracy and is not a 'get out of jail free' card after the fact. If they had reported the actual date of the change rather than a date range that included a 'suspicious time frame', there would never have been a foundation for the conspiracy theory in the first place.


Jim

Not only that but how the story is presented makes it pretty clear that Davis wasn't saying that "sometime between the beginning of May 2018 and August 2019, the form was changed" but that he's using the May 24, 2018 change of form as a bookend: he alleged that sometime between when the form was changed in May 2018 and August 2019, the form was changed again to allow this complaint to move forward.

So a wholly mendacious claim that The Federalist is still trying to spin as true.

--Sam