Trump goes Mob Boss

[Sam]

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!

A report isn't forensic data so that immediately refutes your claim. And the only adequate forensic substitute for the server would be the image files. Additionally reporting over the past year+ has FBI sources making clear that the image files were turned over by CrowdStrike.

But, like I said, you likely don't know about any of this forensic stuff but, more to the point, are not an objective arbiter of fact, making the effort to explain pointless.

--Sam

[Sam]

Hey, man - find the falsehood.

You've gotten lazy with your news consumption and lazy with your thinking. Not too late to reverse course.

New from roguetech labs & bait shop:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40046[/ATTACH]
For those who are still incapable of accepting that there was no collusion.

[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

Pretty sad that you're forced to resort to semantics in order to keep a terminally rebutted claim alive in your mind. Yes, the report didn't use the word "collusion" and explained why they decided to use a synonym. But those of us who plowed through the +400 page report understand that they examined every bit of evidence used to support the claim of collusion and systematically dismantled them until there was nothing left.

[rogue06]

Hey, man - find the falsehood.

You've gotten lazy with your news consumption and lazy with your thinking. Not too late to reverse course.

I'll accept your admission of failure

[Mountain Man]

A report isn't forensic data...

I'm willing to accept that Comey used vague language to deliberately mislead the committee.

Additionally reporting over the past year+ has FBI sources making clear that the image files were turned over by CrowdStrike.

I don't care what has been "reported". Court filings from the FBI flatly debunk all of it: no server images, no unredacted report... nothing!

[lilpixieofterror]

no - it actually can't. the WP, NYT, CT, LAT, PBS, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC etc have very long histories of legitimate journalism covering all topics political, domestic and national. What has happened since 2016 is that a unique personality has occupied the white house, one that has forced a ridiculous amount of attention on himself by his absurd statements and actions. This has legitimately created an inordinate focus on him, but that is because these ridculous things he has done actually affect not just our nation, but the entire world.

These 'other sources' (excepting Fox) are johnny come lately's that exist only as a counter to a perceived bias in the legitimate news outlets, and whose purpose is to promote certain kinds of conservative ideals at all costs. They are not concerned with reporting 'news' but rather with countering anything in the news that they feel threatens their own perspective on things.

They are very, very different things.

Fox is the odd man out in that they do function as a legtimate general news source, with the caveat that they have never, ever even attempted to be an objective source of that news. But because they do in fact function as a general news source, they do cover events that do not have an ideological focus, they can't be lumped in with the rest as not being a legitimate news outlet.


Jim

So Trump made the media flat out lie to us and publish fake stories? He made the media give debate questions to Hillary Clinton? He made the media edit transcripts and recordings? No, the more likely explanation is the MSM is simply partisan hacks, that let their mask slip and expose them as being the propaganda arm of the democrat party.

[lilpixieofterror]

On the one side, you have reputable, long-standing papers of record that occasionally get news wrong because a story is hurried, information is incomplete, or an unreliable source gets used. Such papers often issue retractions and make corrections when facts come to light that change or refute a story's content.

On the other side ... well, we don't even have to pretend. 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. Breitbart, TCT, Gateway Pundit, Hannity, Carlson ... no one in journalism treats these people as straight-shooters.

When your diet is 90%-100% fast food burgers, you quickly lose a responsive palette. Same goes for media consumption: a trashy diet not only makes one sicker, it degrades and eventually eliminates even the ability to recognize the difference between good and bad.

--Sam

Hate to tell you this Sam, the emperor is naked and no amount of wishful thinking will change that reality.

[Sam]

Pretty sad that you're forced to resort to semantics in order to keep a terminally rebutted claim alive in your mind. Yes, the report didn't use the word "collusion" and explained why they decided to use a synonym. But those of us who plowed through the +400 page report understand that they examined every bit of evidence used to support the claim of collusion and systematically dismantled them until there was nothing left.

I'm sorry -- you want a distinction between collusion and coordination to not involve semantics? I merely pointed out the difference between the colloquial term and the legal term, noting that Trump, y'all, and the entire conservative media machine used the colloquial term until it became inconvenient but swooped right back around to using it again when it comes to Clinton.

Any road, in or related to the Mueller report, by memory:

-- George Papadopoulos' repeated attempts to contact Russian sources he believed had "dirt" on Clinton (plead out on lying to FBI)

-- Trump Jr.'s attempt to get dirt on Clinton from people explicitly said to be tied to Putin (no charges because "thing of value" couldn't be quantified and unsure if Trump Jr. was cognizant of campaign finance law)

-- Manafort's communications with Russia-connected Kimilick & sharing of detailed polling data (convicted on FARA violations)

-- Stone's communications and/or coordination with Russian cut-out Wikileaks & likely his communications with the Trump Campaign regarding updates to said (pending trial)

-- The Trump Campaign's awareness during the election that Russia was working to assist it against the Clinton campaign, its welcome of such assistance, and its silence (or, in the case of several) lies about that knowledge.


I continue to be skeptical of folks who say they've read the report and maintain that it exonerates Trump regarding collusion. Either they haven't really read it or they can't really read.

--Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

Hey, man - find the falsehood.

You've gotten lazy with your news consumption and lazy with your thinking. Not too late to reverse course.

12 year old African-American girl claims three boys held her down and cut off some of her dreadlocks. Best part, Karen Pence worked there as a sub. Media jumped in, happily trying to claim this is proof of the racism that Trump exhibits. Problem? It never happened.

There you go Sam, a perfect case of fake news that your blind devotion, to your media overlords, seems to have missed.