Only in America...

[hulloutpost]

I mean your spin on it (verbatim from Trump/Fox) is nonsense. There is no agree to disagree. None of the info released in the latest filing was new, and none of it alleges anyone 'hacked' anyone, despite you saying that above.

There is literally no evidence that Hilary Clinton 'hired someone to hack the presidential computer' as in your post. If you want to back that up with evidence from the Durham filing that'd be fun, I'll wait. There is also no evidence of what your bastion of acceptable news, Fox News, claimed, which is that e-mails or texts were intercepted.

The story basically is:

Tech researchers, hired to look at DNS data and who had a legal right to access it (and in fact, were hired to look for suspicious activity prior to Trump being in office when Obama was president) passed on data to a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for a law firm (Perkins Coie) that did work for the Clinton campaign.

The controversy/the part of the filing of interest is that Sussman (the lawyer) is alleged not to have told the FBI/CIA he worked for the Clinton campaign when he passed the suspicious data on (it seems he didn't actually work for them at the time, and that the Russian activity could be traced back to pre-Trump regardless - but he might have wanted to make Trump look bad which is about as bad as this gets/ a conflict of interest accusation). No one involved from the tech firm is accused of anything illegal or any sort of 'hacking'.

There is no grand Hilary Clinton paid hackers conspiracy. To claim Hilary Clinton would go to jail for this but won't because of Biden is absolute drivel. It is not agree to disagree, you are factually wrong. Complaining other media won't report on stuff that is made up, is also pretty silly.

If you can explain what bit is 'hacking' and how that isn't 'fake news' or how I would prefer to put it, bollocks, that would make your case stronger. This seems to be a strong and balanced explanation of the facts of the case, and why there is an element of shadiness, but also why stupid takes like the above should be ignored.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493965939964092422

If you wish to dismiss the source (I know little of him but identifies as a libertarian so not exactly your socialist fake news media) at least point to what is factually incorrect as that seems like an accurate summary based on everything I can find on the Durham filing.

Hacking refers to the misuse of devices like computers, smartphones, tablets, and networks to cause damage to or corrupt systems, gather information on users, steal data and documents, or disrupt data-related activity.

I would say that misusing the computer by gathering, stealing and selling (false) information to the Clinton campaign fits that definition. If you prefer mining by all means stick with that, I'll call it for what it is.

 

[Rasenimp]

If you really insist on the integrity of the facts I'm saying that your source and interpretation is different to mine and we are indeed arguing about the facts. The New York Post reports that Sussman was lying when he says he wasn't paid directly by his client the Clinton Campaign team and that is why he has been charged with making a false statement to federal agents - some link huh!

When the payments are made on Hillary's watch, from her actual campaign team directly for her benefit, I'm factually quite clear where the responsibility and buck stops, you appear to interpret that differently. Funny that she didn't sack anybody in her team for this outrageous breach.

Put it this way if Clinton HQ didn't want the info. why did they pay for it. Having paid for it why did they use it. Are you seriously suggesting that Clinton did not know about the false information, it's source, how it was obtained and it was all done without her blessing and collusion. I would say factually that Sussman has well and truly been hung out to dry by Clinton and is taking a very big one for team Hillary.

Legally you may be able to interpret Sussman as not being linked to Hills but once the money is paid by her team, as head of that group that is game set and match on her factual connection.

The lawyer has pleaded not guilty to the charge of making a false statement to a federal agent.
Durham’s motion reportedly alleged Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”

Records showed he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations,” which involved an investigative firm, a tech executive, cyber researchers and numerous employees at internet companies, the motion reportedly stated.

In 2017, Sussmann provided “an updated set of allegations” about then-President Trump’s Russian connection to another government agency, the motion said, according to the outlet.

Among the accusations leveled at that time was that suspicious DNS lookups by Russian-affiliated IP addresses “demonstrated Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations,” the motion reportedly said.

The allegations “relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic” that Tech Executive-1 and others “had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider”.

I've read all this and you apparently hadn't but now have read it for the first time and you're still not getting the actual issue. I've literally said, the link between Clinton's campaign team and Sussman isn't the issue here. All of this is legal - the issue in the filing is, did Sussman lie about having links to the Clinton campaign. Even if he did, there might be some moral issue here but nothing that actually is illegal on the data side (it's not about interpretation, the data was legally acquired by a tech firm working in/for the white house).

If you read into the filing, even that case seems flaky. The allegedly false statement is to whom Sussmann represented when he brought Baker (FBI legal counsel) some information about the Russia links as you identify. Baker is the only witness, and he is on the record saying something different to the indictment - in 2018, Baker didn't have a memory (under oath on record) of whether there was even a conversation about it:

"
Q. Okay. So when Mr. Sussman came to you to provide some evidence, you were not specifically aware that he was representing the DNC or the Hillary Clinton campaign at the time?

A. I don’t recall, I don’t recall him specifically saying that at the time

Meadows: But you said you were friends with him, right?

Baker: Yes, sir.

Meadows: So, I mean, you knew what his career was.

Baker: Generally speaking.

Meadows: And you knew, generally speaking, that he had some involvement with the DNC.

Baker: Yes.

"

So your case that is going to lock up Hilary, boils down to the legal acquiring of information and passing to law authorities, but when passing it on, the lawyer not explicitly saying he had worked for Clinton even though they knew he had worked for Clinton. And the one witness can't remember what happened. Even in your comment - there's nothing suggesting Clinton "paid for hacking."

 

[Rasenimp]

Hacking refers to the misuse of devices like computers, smartphones, tablets, and networks to cause damage to or corrupt systems, gather information on users, steal data and documents, or disrupt data-related activity.

I would say that misusing the computer by gathering, stealing and selling (false) information to the Clinton campaign fits that definition. If you prefer mining by all means stick with that, I'll call it for what it is.

Hacking refers to misuse of devices like computers

"to gather information on users, steal data"

The data was acquired legally and was not stolen. The best bit is, Durham has spent years on this and could have brought this to court or accused anyone of anything relating to 'hacking' and the best they have got is Sussman lied about working for the Clinton campaign to someone who is on record as saying he can't remember what Sussman said but generally knew he did stuff for the DNC. AND Durham's just come up with this just after the statute of limitation ran out on this having had 5 years to do anything about it. There were stories about the DNS data in 2016!

And you wonder why was like lol, how have you ranted about Hilary being protected from prison on this one.

 

[hulloutpost]

Hacking refers to misuse of devices like computers

"to gather information on users, steal data"

The data was acquired legally and was not stolen. The best bit is, Durham has spent years on this and could have brought this to court or accused anyone of anything relating to 'hacking' and the best they have got is Sussman lied about working for the Clinton campaign to someone who is on record as saying he can't remember what Sussman said but generally knew he did stuff for the DNC. AND Durham's just come up with this just after the statute of limitation ran out on this having had 5 years to do anything about it. There were stories about the DNS data in 2016!

And you wonder why was like lol, how have you ranted about Hilary being protected from prison on this one.

No, what it really boils down to is why did he provide that/any information to Clinton's Campaign team and why did they pay him. Once you know the answer to those two questions everything else is obfuscation, spin and deflection.

He can try and distance himself from his connections and motivations as much as he likes, but clearly Durham is not buying that for one moment and has presented evidence to the contrary, hence Sussman is charged with lying to a federal investigator (notwithstanding of course he has not been found guilty at this time and that I do cede).

 

[Rasenimp]

No, what it really boils down to is why did he provide that/any information to Clinton's Campaign team and why did they pay him. Once you know the answer to those two questions everything else is obfuscation, spin and deflection.

He can try and distance himself from his connections and motivations as much as he likes, but clearly Durham is not buying that for one moment and has presented evidence to the contrary, hence Sussman is charged with lying to a federal investigator (notwithstanding of course he has not been found guilty at this time and that I do cede) .

It's not though - even if Sussman was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, you don't understand the techy bit (why you kept saying hacking). If he was literally paid to dig up dirt on Trump (we have no idea of this, but if he was) legally acquired it (which he did) and then passed it on to the FBI... the issue at most seems to be the FBI could say well, we didn't know this was a partisan thing we thought you were a fair actor. I would be shocked it they weren't paying people to do diligence on Trump and some of the Russia links which were well publicised. I'd be shocked if the Republicans didn't do research on Clinton (they clearly did based on a lot of the stories at that time)... but that's not illegal and none of the filings (or even any allegations at any point) suggest acquiring that data was illegal...

But the DNS logs were still worth investigating, and the reasons for the Alfa bank pinging have never been confirmed. The FBI may have found they were innocent and like spam e-mails or something, but there was reason for a number of researchers to be concerned about them as per all the stories (including a very long read in Slate in 2016 - none of this is new, but you presented the story as new evidence of 'hacking').

The story, to recap is:

• Tech company is doing what it is paid to do and checking DNS logs
• DNS logs have something suspicious in
• They contact their lawyer who passes data on to FBI. Lawyer also works/worked for Clinton campaign. He may be actively paid to do opposition research on Trump - but this is neither here nor there as the way he acquired the data was legal
• 5 years later (Sep 2021) there is an accusation that the lawyer did not say he was working for the Clinton campaign in an un minuted, unrecorded conversation with the FBI counsel when he shared the logs. It's not even proven he shared the logs or had access even, just that they existed and were suspicious. It's also not illegal if he worked for the Clinton campaign, the only point is whether he actively lied to the FBI counsel about this.

And you started from 'Clinton paid to hack the presidential computer' which is erroneous, and that the only reason she wasn't going to prison was because 'she has dirt on Biden'. And when I've presented the actual facts of the story you clearly didn't understand based on the erroneous post, you just doubled down...

And you've just said it just boils down to X, the bolded part, when it doesn't because the filing isn't even that. It's literally did Sussman not disclose to the FBI he was working for the Clinton campaign, which is already flimsy based on the Baker testimony I posted in this thread.

 

[hulloutpost]

Leaving aside the crass Biden hypocrisy on show here; methinks a severe case of reality has landed.

The only question is has there been a change of heart because defund the police proved to be a vote loser, or alternatively the ramifications of such breath taking stupidity in the first place with the inevitable horrendous rise in crime, no longer able to be hidden or ignored.

 

[hulloutpost]

Hot on the heels of Bercow over here, some more justice finally meted out to another vile individual. Still nauseatingly playing the victim card as he's being 'taken down'.

 

[SalfordImp]

Another bit of news slipped out during the last week hoping its gets missed;


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/06/tony-blair-admits-may-have-wrong-iraq-war/

 

[hulloutpost]

oh no, seriously?

It hasn't been *censored* by the mainstream media, they just don't give the story any credibility since no-one will give them the evidence. Even Fox didn't take it up, that's how bad it was and these aren't even new allegations they are months if not years old

And you do know that the New York Post reporter who wrote that article insisted he have his name taken off the byline such was his objection to the veracity of the evidence?

Here's NBC's take on it
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...d-when-nbc-news-tried-report-alleged-n1245533

And here's the Business Insider's take
https://www.businessinsider.com/spi...erable-russian-intelligence-2020-10?r=US&IR=T

So far from censoring it, they are explaining why they are not covering it.

Never mind the fact the provenance of the laptop is extremely dubious and it has still to be established it was Hunter Biden's laptop at all...

Social media censors things all the time, it's why you can't see Alex Jones or any number of far right Qanon conspiracy theories on social media (you're surely not advocating Alex Jones be allowed back on youtube are you?)

This is both-siderism horse crap of the highest order. There is simply no way you can compare this flimsy cooked up evidence to (for instance) the president of the United States still owning a Chinese bank account or waving away all objections to the granting full security clearance to his son and son-in-law and pushing it through.

You are falling for a right-wing attempt to generate a smoke screen that attempts to cover the presidents opponent in a smear designed to generate a response that points out "See, both sides do this, none of the stuff we get up to can be criticised, Joe Biden does the same!" It's propaganda horse crap designed to solidify Trumps base support. I am genuinely astonished you can see this any other way...

If you genuinely believe this story is evidence of some sort of national US media cover up then I don't think there is any more point in debating it because you are in conspiracy theory land and there's no coming back from there...

Hunter Biden’s emails are genuine, The New York Times admits | World | The Times

NYT finally admits Hunter Biden's laptop is real a year after DailyMail.com confirmed authenticity | Daily Mail Online

Anything you wanted to add

US citizens still having to get the truth about their country from a news organisation from the other side of the world.

Credit where it's due though; main stream media managed to suppress the truth long enough to help get Biden elected.

 

[Sincilbanks]

Hunter Biden’s emails are genuine, The New York Times admits | World | The Times

NYT finally admits Hunter Biden's laptop is real a year after DailyMail.com confirmed authenticity | Daily Mail Online

Anything you wanted to add

US citizens still having to get the truth about their country from a news organisation from the other side of the world.

Credit where it's due though; main stream media managed to suppress the truth long enough to help get Biden elected.

Sky News Australia is your source? And it's quoting Joe Rogan? Lol...

 

[stokeimp]

Sad news about Madelaine Albright

 

[hulloutpost]

Sky News Australia is your source? And it's quoting Joe Rogan? Lol...

Err no, The New York Times actually. Obviously they and the rest of MSM don't want to dig down and highlight the truth, so it's up to 'the usual suspects' to actually run with it again.

Are you still in denial or are the NYT liars as well .

Anyway, yet again we see it was MSM and social platforms trying to undermine the US electoral process, like Twitter, who shut down the feed of The New York Post for nearly a fortnight before the election (blocking people who tried to share the story) and the MSM who buried the story or said it was Russian interference (sound familiar).

Like I said before, fair dues it was effective; apparently 16% of Biden voters polled said they would have reconsidered their vote had they known about the lap top content.

 

[Rasenimp]

Err no, The New York Times actually. Obviously they and the rest of MSM don't want to dig down and highlight the truth, so it's up to 'the usual suspects' to actually run with it again.

Are you still in denial or are the NYT liars as well .

Anyway, yet again we see it was MSM and social platforms trying to undermine the US electoral process, like Twitter, who shut down the feed of The New York Post for nearly a fortnight before the election (blocking people who tried to share the story) and the MSM who buried the story or said it was Russian interference (sound familiar).

Like I said before, fair dues it was effective; apparently 16% of Biden voters polled said they would have reconsidered their vote had they known about the lap top content.

Isn't this still 100% smoke absolutely no fire, like a lot of right wing conspiracy theories about the democrats? Repeat it often enough and people are bothered. I'm not saying there's 100% nothing unethical in all of this on HB's part, or that he didn't have a drug problem, but it's still really unclear based on everything available as to why we should actually care or what the problem is, to me.

A bunch of conservatives have had the content from the laptop for absolutely ages, and haven't bothered to publish it nor share with the wider media who are apparently willfully engaged in the conspiracy. Attempts to obtain the data from media companies were generally left at 'trust me bro, everything we say is on it is true' from the likes of Rudy Giuliani (source).

I don't think that some e-mails on the laptop being from Hunter Biden were ever really in question, more the veracity of a load of stuff on the laptop including stuff that appeared entirely fabricated/HB had had his e-mails snooped on. The repair shop stuff is utterly bizarre and makes zero technical sense, which makes me still think it's not his laptop and the information had been acquired illegally, so you can start to see why newspapers etc might be wary of diving in head first with it.

There's a lot of innuendo here, and claiming 'some e-mails on the laptop 'appear' authentic' as some huge gotcha is so weak. Why do we actually care, can you explain?

 

[MaineRoad_96]

Isn't this still 100% smoke absolutely no fire, like a lot of right wing conspiracy theories about the democrats? Repeat it often enough and people are bothered. I'm not saying there's 100% nothing unethical in all of this on HB's part, but it's still really unclear based on everything available as to why we should actually care or what the problem is, to me.

A bunch of conservatives have had the content from the laptop for absolutely ages, and haven't bothered to publish it nor share with the wider media who are apparently willfully engaged in the conspiracy. Attempts to obtain the data from media companies were generally left at 'trust me bro, everything we say is on it is true' from the likes of Rudy Giuliani (source).

I don't think that some e-mails on the laptop being from Hunter Biden were ever really in question, more the veracity of a load of stuff on the laptop including stuff that appeared entirely fabricated/HB had had his e-mails snooped on. The repair shop stuff is utterly bizarre and makes zero technical sense, which makes me still think it's not his laptop and the information had been acquired illegally, so you can start to see why newspapers etc might be wary of diving in head first with it.

There's a lot of innuendo here, and claiming 'some e-mails on the laptop 'appear' authentic' as some huge gotcha is so weak. Why do we actually care, can you explain?

No no no - it’s the entire ‘main stream media’ that is conspiring here, and it’s the brave, perceptive, free-thinking far right conspiracy theorists that know the ‘real’ truth. Thank the lord for all our sakes we have them to tell us what’s what, because we sure as hell aren’t bright enough to decide for ourselves.

 

[hulloutpost]

Isn't this still 100% smoke absolutely no fire, like a lot of right wing conspiracy theories about the democrats? Repeat it often enough and people are bothered. I'm not saying there's 100% nothing unethical in all of this on HB's part, or that he didn't have a drug problem, but it's still really unclear based on everything available as to why we should actually care or what the problem is, to me.

A bunch of conservatives have had the content from the laptop for absolutely ages, and haven't bothered to publish it nor share with the wider media who are apparently willfully engaged in the conspiracy. Attempts to obtain the data from media companies were generally left at 'trust me bro, everything we say is on it is true' from the likes of Rudy Giuliani (source).

I don't think that some e-mails on the laptop being from Hunter Biden were ever really in question, more the veracity of a load of stuff on the laptop including stuff that appeared entirely fabricated/HB had had his e-mails snooped on. The repair shop stuff is utterly bizarre and makes zero technical sense, which makes me still think it's not his laptop and the information had been acquired illegally, so you can start to see why newspapers etc might be wary of diving in head first with it.

There's a lot of innuendo here, and claiming 'some e-mails on the laptop 'appear' authentic' as some huge gotcha is so weak. Why do we actually care, can you explain?

No smoke and fire. The New York Times having tried to bury the veracity (understandably given their political leanings) tried to release bad news on a good day aka. page 16 paragraph 20, when covering the piece on Hunter's (apparently) probable criminal charges in the offing for tax evasion.

Many outlets tried to get the material out there (for their own obvious political advantage naturally) but here's the whole point: It was suppressed and written off as Russian election interference (lies) by the political classes when the details are true.

Aside from being funny that people are trying to gaslight and pass it off as conspiracy theories when it patently isn't; the important thing that matters is there is a very good chance that the media lied, suppressed and colluded to undermine and directly decide the outcome of a presidential election.

Isn't that something that matters and we should care about (what's happened in the world since then I wonder) in a democracy - or doesn't that count unless it is nasty Brexiteers telling lies about the EU before a referendum.

Why do you actually care so much to dismiss the truth as lies, care to explain?

 

[hulloutpost]

No no no - it’s the entire ‘main stream media’ that is conspiring here, and it’s the brave, perceptive, free-thinking far right conspiracy theorists that know the ‘real’ truth. Thank the lord for all our sakes we have them to tell us what’s what, because we sure as hell aren’t bright enough to decide for ourselves.

It's not the whole media though is it. It's certain sections of the media that didn't want their pro Biden clients finding out ahead of the election - deciding what people should or shouldn't know. Sounds like the sort of behaviour that is acceptable in places like Iran and Russia to me.

You see no problem in Twitter censoring an established paper like the New York Post and people who tried to share the details? Sounds like the sort of behaviour that is acceptable in places like Iran and Russia to me.

Why are you so desperate to pass the truth off as conspiracy theories? Surely people are bright enough and can be trusted to be told the truth and decide for themselves how relevant or important it is. In fact really, in a democracy they have the right to know about these things.

It's exactly the job of the press to do that or perhaps they should have their freedoms scrutinised if they can't be trusted to do that with integrity.

It's one thing the press/social media having political bias, promoting their political opinions and points of view - of course they all do. It is something else entirely insidious and unacceptable to wilfully prevent the truth being told, even worse to go further and call it lies. Sounds like the sort of behaviour that is acceptable in places like Iran and Russia to me.

Do you think it's acceptable for the press to censor and suppress the truth? Or do you only think that when the truth doesn't fit what you would like to hear?

 

[hulloutpost]

I have to admire the consistency of the approach on here mind.

When something is printed that people don't like - gaslight and pass it off as conspiracy theories.

When something is proven to be true - gaslight and pass it off as conspiracy theories.

Surely it's only right for everybody to have full access to an audit trail and chronology of the Hunter lap top, detailed cross examination of the computer shop owner's account (where Hunter left his lap top), full details of the contents on the lap top and a forensic examination of their veracity. Why on earth wouldn't anybody want that to happen, rather than to keep insisting it's all a conspiracy.

Having done that, sure as Hell people can be trusted to reach their own conclusions, not just be told it's all conspiracy theories without allowing them to see the relevant material.

Blimey, it's not even a shady protected media source or whistle blower we're talking here. It's an openly named shop owner (ordinary Joe Bloggs) who came into possession of the lap top and it's contents when Hunter either couldn't remember where he'd left it for repairs or couldn't be arsed to collect it afterwards.

Funny how it's a conspiracy, yet the original computer is intact and freely available to be examined, along with the publicly named shop owner who is/has been willing and able to give details of how he came into lawful possession of the item directly from one Hunter Biden.

So there you go certain media outlets, fill your boots - you've got direct access to a huge news story with original, verifiable material and eye witness. You're all over this, surely? No? Why ever not?

 

[MaineRoad_96]

What on earth are you wibbling on about? What point are you trying to make?

Biden’s a shit President? Well, hold the front page. He only got in because he’s less bad than the orange baby that preceded him.

The political classes in America, as over here, look after, and cover up for their own? Wow, that’s a real zinger.

There’s bias in news media? Well I never.

The press censor certain news items and emphasise their own agenda? Again, I’m truly stunned, and glad you’ve pointed it out.

There’s not some vast liberal conspiracy out to get you. There’s grifters everywhere - that’s why they get into politics. Some are less bad than others.

 

[Rasenimp]

No smoke and fire. The New York Times having tried to bury the veracity (understandably given their political leanings) tried to release bad news on a good day aka. page 16 paragraph 20, when covering the piece on Hunter's (apparently) probable criminal charges in the offing for tax evasion.

Many outlets tried to get the material out there (for their own obvious political advantage naturally) but here's the whole point: It was suppressed and written off as Russian election interference (lies) by the political classes when the details are true.

Aside from being funny that people are trying to gaslight and pass it off as conspiracy theories when it patently isn't; the important thing that matters is there is a very good chance that the media lied, suppressed and colluded to undermine and directly decide the outcome of a presidential election.

Isn't that something that matters and we should care about (what's happened in the world since then I wonder) in a democracy - or doesn't that count unless it is nasty Brexiteers telling lies about the EU before a referendum.

Why do you actually care so much to dismiss the truth as lies, care to explain?

You literally didn't answer the question. Every time you just argue a different point; I'm saying I don't understand what the big deal about some emails being authentic is. What is the problem? There's been no evidence of any smoking gun just loads of whining... when lots of conservatives apparently have seen the material and not released it? Are you really saying giuliani or tucker carson with their platforms had absolutely no way of sharing any of this? Pull the other one.

Like many on here, I'm not particularly fussed about Joe Biden but there has never been much evidence in this other than people shouting laptop because they don't like him, I'm perfectly happy to be enlightened.

Plus love how many weird details you left out, with the repair shop owner being legally blind and not knowing if it was actually hunter biden just that he said he was, was unwilling to answer questions from the media at the time as to how it came into his possession, the fbi investigated and said nothing doing.

And you've done a whole rant about it and how no one followed it up- CBS interviewed the repair shop owner for two hours before the election! There's loads of articles about the emails from October and the content.

 

[Rasenimp]

And also, to be incredulous that anyone might suggest anything of a whiff of a conspiracy when social media is full of complete nonsense about hunter biden and George soros bankrolling bioweapons or something and republicans lapping it up, and that the laptop has irrefutable proof he's a child rapist.

Gee, I wonder why some of this should be taken with a pinch of salt