Russia probes kick into high gear

[Tiggs]

11 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

an investigation which was only instigated when the "Democratic" Party lost the election they were convinced was rightly theirs. Is there honestly not grounds for suspicion that this whole farce was instigated purely out of their desperation to find some explanation that wasn't that their candidate was loathed buy a large section of the populace? 

FBI started the investigation months before the election had even been held.

Your conspiracy theory is in need of a time machine.

[.ZZ.]

3 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Your conspiracy theory is in need of a time machine.

The same time machine that the Dems used to vilify T*ump when he taunted the media with the sentence that won't die when he said: "Russia, if you're listening, release the 33,000 emails that crooked Hillary deleted "

"Trump called on the Russians to hack Hillary's emails!!" When actually the deed was done months earlier... and until the FBI report was watered down from the original:  "Her server was almost certainly hacked by hostile actors" to the more PC version "could have been" (paraphrasing)

 

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, .ZZ. said:

The same time machine that the Dems used to vilify T*ump when he taunted the media with the sentence that won't die when he said: "Russia, if you're listening, release the 33,000 emails that crooked Hillary deleted "

"Trump called on the Russians to hack Hillary's emails!!" When actually the deed was done months earlier... and until the FBI report was watered down from the original:  "Her server was almost certainly hacked by hostile actors" to the more PC version "could have been" (paraphrasing)

What do you think the word "release" in that sentence means?

[.ZZ.]

Just now, Tiggs said:

What do you think the word "release" in that sentence means?

Just a wild guess on my part, but because they already had them?

[Tiggs]

1 minute ago, .ZZ. said:

Just a wild guess on my part, but because they already had them?

Yep. Hard to hack emails that had already been deleted.

[Tiggs]

20 hours ago, and then said:

So demanding accountability when there is obvious evidence of bias in the heart of the investigation is tantamount to a "witch hunt"?  How does that work? The guy who's handling the investigation is texting trash about Trump, glorifying HRC and speaking about "insurance" and that doesn't rise to an indication of inappropriate behavior for a professional?

FBI agents are allowed and encouraged to hold their own private political views.

I'm fairly sure you could take almost any FBI agent's private messages and find similar sentiments, on both sides of the fence.

There's an internal investigation ongoing to see if Strzok's private views affected his work. That's very different from Devin Nunes -- a former member of the Trump Transition team -- holding secret investigations into the DOJ and FBI on a purely partisan basis.

A secret investigation that's currently focused on attacking the two members of the FBI who can verify the contents of Comey's memo's at the time he wrote them.

Let alone the unevidenced shouts of "Coup" coming out of the right-wing media.
 

20 hours ago, and then said:

Call it as you like but the fact remains that he's untouchable until HE destroys his base.

I'd like to think that if it were to happen, compelling evidence in a highly publicised criminal trial might do the trick. Even Nixon retained a loyal core of 25%. But we'll see.
 

20 hours ago, and then said:

To use your expression - it's obvious to me and I'm sure, most of his supporters, that the Left are in a full-on search and destroy mission against him and they threw ethics out the window on day one.

The Left isn't in charge of the investigation. That would be a lifelong Republican, appointed by a lifelong Republican, appointed by Trump, and funded by a Republican majority government.

[bee]

49 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Yep. Hard to hack emails that had already been deleted.

 

'hard' was a good choice of words....

hard but not impossible..?

now I'm most definitely not an expert on these matters but a quick search showed this --

and the bit about ISPs having the data must be why there was all that about Clinton et al having a separate server..?

but perhaps real experts can 'hack' into the world wide search engines and '''storage system'''' ? not sure...

never really gone

 

Quote

When You "Delete" Your Emails

Another fairly common piece of knowledge is that nothing on the internet is ever truly gone. Immense caching – a storage system that saves all content and previous versions – through major search engines like Google ensures that the digital collective is preserved constantly. When you delete email messages (and empty your "Trash" folder), it may seem like there’s no way to get that data back, but that isn't entirely true.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The good news here is that for the most part, hackers can’t access emails that are deleted permanently from the Trash folder. However, email ISPs keep backup copies of client inboxes, and in some cases these deleted messages can be retrieved, usually through a court order.

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by bee

[Tiggs]

9 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

2.) Comey lied to the F.B.I. and Trumped fired him for that. He didn't fire him because he didn't shut down the investigation. Article from NYTimes.

* Whispers * Your article is about Flynn.

[Tiggs]

Just now, bee said:

'hard' was a good choice of words....

hard but not impossible..?

now I'm most definitely not an expert on these matters but a quick search showed this --

and the bit about ISPs having the data must be why there was all that about Clinton et al having a separate server..?

but perhaps real experts can 'hack' into the world wide '''storage system'''' ? not sure...

never really gone

Emails aren't cached on Google. If the FBI can't recover them with access to the underlying server -- then they're gone.

[bee]

2 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Emails aren't cached on Google. If the FBI can't recover them with access to the underlying server -- then they're gone.

Like I said I'm no expert but I doubt that emails ever completely disappear ---- they will be somewhere even when deleted
or 'wiped'.....

 

[bee]

10 minutes ago, bee said:

but perhaps real experts can 'hack' into the world wide search engines and '''storage system'''' ? not sure...

 

and NSA etc wouldn't need to hack --- they would just have access...?....

[Tiggs]

Just now, bee said:

Like I said I'm no expert but I doubt that emails ever completely disappear ---- they will be somewhere even when deleted
or 'wiped'.....

Depends what emails and from which email provider.

If you've got your own email server -- then that, and the client devices you use to access them, (sans hacking and backups) are generally the only places those emails are going to be.
 

4 minutes ago, bee said:

and NSA etc wouldn't need to hack --- they would just have access...?....

Google's cached webpages are generally public (they use them when the webpage is unavailable) -- but that's not where emails live.

[Paranormal Panther]

15 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

 

US Meddling in 1996 Russian Elections in Support of Boris Yeltsin

 

Get with the program, Karl. "Do as we say, not as we do (just like with the Israeli elections)."

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

You think the certifiably deranged Hillary might have been the better choice after all? 

Oh I'm sure she would have been able to gain "respect" on the world stage; everyone would want to do all they could to placate a deranged maniac with the world's most powerful weaponry wouldn't they.

 

Especially when they couldn't be sure when the aforementioned was sober or lucid.  

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Tiggs said:

FBI agents are allowed and encouraged to hold their own private political views.

I'm fairly sure you could take almost any FBI agent's private messages and find similar sentiments, on both sides of the fence.

There's an internal investigation ongoing to see if Strzok's private views affected his work. That's very different from Devin Nunes -- a former member of the Trump Transition team -- holding secret investigations into the DOJ and FBI on a purely partisan basis.

A secret investigation that's currently focused on attacking the two members of the FBI who can verify the contents of Comey's memo's at the time he wrote them.

Let alone the unevidenced shouts of "Coup" coming out of the right-wing media.
 

I'd like to think that if it were to happen, compelling evidence in a highly publicised criminal trial might do the trick. Even Nixon retained a loyal core of 25%. But we'll see.
 

The Left isn't in charge of the investigation. That would be a lifelong Republican, appointed by a lifelong Republican, appointed by Trump, and funded by a Republican majority government.

You crack me up, man.  Those R's are almost as anti-Trump as the rest of the establishment. And I guess the media are innocent bystanders in all this, too, yeah?  Too funny.  The bottom line, as always, is that it's a waste of time and money if the goal is to give the R's a free pass for voting to convict him in an Impeachment trial.  You probably won't believe it but even I would support removing him IF real proof is found that shows a true conspiracy between Trump and his campaign to literally change vote totals in some way.  Almost anything else could be rightly considered as fair game in a political campaign.  HRC regularly used her influence to benefit foreign governments that "donated" to her  Foundation.  If that were done by anyone else it might just be considered "pay for play".  I have no doubt that Putin's boys did everything they could to cast doubt on our electoral process.  The sad thing is that with all the shenanigans from Left and Right, it was all too easy to accomplish.  Worse yet, there doesn't appear to be any real zeal to prosecute or even seriously investigate the known corruption.  Trump cited the Imran Awan case just today.  No apparent movement at all after several months.  This guy is conceivably implicated in a serious espionage effort against multiple House members.

[SHaYap]

On 12/24/2017 at 8:03 AM, Merc14 said:

So let me get this straight, you are condoning the FBI and DoJ planting false evidence in order to unmask a  private citizen in an uncalled for FISA search and then   appointing an unneeded Special Prosecutor, who turns out to be completely corrupted so he can disrupt the first year of a presidency?

Happy New Year Merc ... yeah ... Happy New Year ...

~

[skliss]

13 hours ago, bee said:

Like I said I'm no expert but I doubt that emails ever completely disappear ---- they will be somewhere even when deleted
or 'wiped'.....

 

What about the people the emails were sent to. Wouldn't they have copies on their servers/computers?

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, skliss said:

What about the people the emails were sent to. Wouldn't they have copies on their servers/computers?

Sure, but what if you are using a private server and those who you email your incriminating stuff to, are also on that server? Then you're still going to have to turn over the server, or trust them to forward (or in Clinton's case... Print) them to any investigating body.

From what I understand the ISP will know you sent something, but not what you sent.

Edited December 30, 2017 by DieChecker

[skliss]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Sure, but what if you are using a private server and those who you email your incriminating stuff to, are also on that server? Then you're still going to have to turn over the server, or trust them to forward (or in Clinton's case... Print) them to any investigating body.

From what I understand the ISP will know you sent something, but not what you sent.

I guess I assumed she was the only one with an email on that system and she was mailing people outside of it...for example Obama, her Clinton foundation staff or Wasserman Schultz. She can't have given everyone she knew an email or they couldn't claim to not know about it. And what was it called anyway.... Obama@Iamqueenoftheworld.com 

[Tiggs]

41 minutes ago, skliss said:

I guess I assumed she was the only one with an email on that system and she was mailing people outside of it...for example Obama, her Clinton foundation staff or Wasserman Schultz. She can't have given everyone she knew an email or they couldn't claim to not know about it. And what was it called anyway.... Obama@Iamqueenoftheworld.com 

There may well have been copies with sending/receiving parties.

Much more difficult to hack the email of everyone that's ever sent someone an email (if you'd even know who they were), than a single email inbox.
 

[Tiggs]

The New York Times have published an article on how the FBI investigation began.

Spoiler: It wasn't the Steele Dossier.

Once the information Mr. Papadopoulos had disclosed to the Australian diplomat reached the F.B.I., the bureau opened an investigation that became one of its most closely guarded secrets. Senior agents did not discuss it at the daily morning briefing, a classified setting where officials normally speak freely about highly sensitive operations.

Besides the information from the Australians, the investigation was also propelled by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British and Dutch. A trip to Moscow by another adviser, Carter Page, also raised concerns at the F.B.I.

Source: The New York Times

[bee]

11 hours ago, skliss said:

What about the people the emails were sent to. Wouldn't they have copies on their servers/computers?

 

good point -- a copy in the sent box...one in the receiver's inbox.... and copies with the servers
(and one or more copies for the Dragnet Storage place ??? ) so at least 5 copies..?

(if I'm getting that right)

Interestingly Obama used a pseudonym to communicate with Hillary on her private server...
so either he used the same private server  or had one of his own... or used some other one -

I seem to remember Obama denying he knew Clinton used a private server - but he must have known
if he used it...?....using a pseudonym --

in this article they reckon that the emails automatically deleted after 60 days - but would that include the
server copies.... and even if it did.... it wouldn't include the copy to the Dragnet system - so one  copy at least
would exist...'''somewhere'''....

http://uk.businessinsider.com/obama-used-a-pseudonym-while-emailing-hillary-clinton-while-she-was-at-the-us-state-department-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

 

Quote

President Barack Obama used a fake name while communicating with Hillary Clinton while she used a private email server during her time as US secretary of state,

 FBI documents released Friday revealed.

The documents offer some details about the agency's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, a matter that has continually plagued the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign.

 

 ^^^^ when you go on that link in the quote box it says..... ''This page does not seem to exist''… 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by bee

[Tiggs]

12 minutes ago, bee said:

I seem to remember Obama denying he knew Clinton used a private server - but he must have known
if he used it...?

Not really. Pointing a domain name to a mail server is trivial.

In other words -- the email address bob@bobsprivateserver.com can easily route mail to the very same inbox that bob@us.gov does. You can't tell from an email address alone what goes where.

[bee]

25 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Not really. Pointing a domain name to a mail server is trivial.

In other words -- the email address bob@bobsprivateserver.com can easily route mail to the very same inbox that bob@us.gov does. You can't tell from an email address alone what goes where.

 

in this article it says...

It's been known since last year that Obama and Clinton corresponded occasionally via her private account, but the White House has insisted Obama did not know she relied on it routinely and exclusively for official business.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

but they're not going to release the emails between Clinton and Obama and Obama is not going to admit government
business was talked about in those emails -- 

but anyway-- that's all getting off topic I suppose...

 

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by bee

[Michelle]

3 minutes ago, bee said:

 

in this article it says...

It's been known since last year that Obama and Clinton corresponded occasionally via her private account, but the White House has insisted Obama did not know she relied on it routinely and exclusively for official business.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

but they're not going to release the emails between Clinton and Obama and Obama is not going to admit government
business was talked about in those emails -- 

but anyway-- that's all getting off topic I suppose...

 

 

I had assumed this was common knowledge, but apparently not. It's been reported everywhere.