Whoops: Did we just see the beans spilled?

[Sope Creek]

What do you think we have more concerete evidence proving:

1. Trump colluded with Russia?
2. The governement has actively pursued aparatus to violate our rights?

We have more than sufficient cause to investigate whether Trump colluded with Russia.

There is no evidence that the government has done anything in violation of Trump's or anybody else's rights. I challenge you to provide ANY evidence that any surveillance done that ended up having Trump or anyone else in his campaign or administration was unlawful.

If you were a patriot at all you'd be wanting to know what the hell your president and/or his campaign surrogates/staff were doing communicating with Russia - whose authoritarian leader has been actively pursuing policies and actions that contravene the best interest of your country - and why. If you were an American at all, you'd want to know whether Trump owes Russian or Ukranian oligarchs a shitload of money, and is compromised because of that fact. But noooooo, you're so jaded about Clinton! and Bengazhi! and Obama! that you've ceded any semblance of independence and rational thought.

Get off my lawn.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I did listen to it, as I watched it. And I think your interpretation is bunk. Now I am asking you to defend your interpretation with actual quotations from her comments.

None of which she suggested happened in her comments.

It's all there.* It is NOT okay to use FISA surveillance material of foreign governments for domestic partisan political purposes. If she thought Trump people broke the law (which itself is a problem because this is FISA-obtained stuff is supposed to deep six the identities of Americans) her duty was to give it to the FBI and then she should have walked. But noooo. She made sure it got to the hill where it would assuredly become a political issue and would be leaked all over the place. She said there was more to be disclosed and she was worried it wouldn't be outed. And then you have a real-time Obama order expanding the distribution list to political operatives which is a second problem. This whole thing stinks.

If this is all on the up and up, Obama, or somebody in his administration, could have issued a press release which said "looky here, we found dirt on Trump's team while we were surveilling the Russians". They obviously couldn't do that, so Obama and others made sure it was given wide distribution to those with political as opposed to legal interests knowing that leaks would happen.

If you don't see the problems here, you are just being a silly partisan, or you are just dumb.

*Well, I was urging my former colleagues, and, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration. Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods — meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill…That’s why you have the leaking."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If you don't see the problems here, you are just being a silly partisan, or you are just dumb.

Of course I can't see the problems here, because you can't even demonstrate them.

I can certainly understand the problems with the hypotheticals you are describing. I can't, however, make a connection between those hypotheticals and what she actually said in that segment. Nor, apparently, can you, because for at least the third time, you have quietly refused to offer any specifics.

And I'm the dumb partisan? Please.

Again, please quote examples of what she said and explain why those specific statements are problematic. Don't just jump straight to your assumptions. Actually use her words against her. You are a lawyer, right?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

you have quietly refused to offer any specifics

What are you talking about? Put her quote in my post. Can't get anymore specific than that. If you don't see that her focus was to get the information to the hill, you aren't seeing.

Oh yeah, the hill is not a law enforcement agency, it's a political body, just in case you need to be reminded of that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What are you talking about? Put her quote in my post. Can't get anymore specific than that. If you don't see that her focus was to get the information to the hill, you aren't seeing.

Oh yeah, the hill is not a law enforcement agency, it's a political body, just in case you need to be reminded of that.

And that quote has no connection whatsoever to the things you are complaining about. She doesn't say anything about giving information to anyone. Hell, she doesn't even imply that we're talking about FISA here. We don't know if the intelligence was even gathered on American soil. Your entire argument is nothing but assumptions.

I said quote her and then describe what was problematic about what she said. You quoted her...and then did nothing. Both steps are required, please.

 

[meridian]

You are a crazy person.

Wishful thinking is probably the right phrase. Hoosier in Mad Town has been waiting for something that connects Obama to something bad. He heard/read something that had words "Obama" and "Russia." So, he added 1 + 0 to his abacus, and the answer came out 2,000.

Totally expected for Hoosier in Mad Town, amigo.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

Wishful thinking is probably right phrase. Hoosier in Mad Town have been waiting for something that connects Obama to something bad. He heard/read something that had words "Obama" and "Russia." So, he added 1 + 0 to his abacus, and the answer came out 2,000.

Totally expected for Hoosier in Mad Town, amigo.

You think I believe it just Obama? I'm afraid this goes well beyond party lines and back a long time.

And do you think I really want that to be true? The ramifications are pretty dire if that is the case.

 

[meridian]

And do you think I really want that to be true?

Yes.

 

[sglowrider]

I thought Obama is suppose to be an illegal immigrant Kenyan Muslim commie socialist fake prez?
Why's he helping the #MAGA super leader?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I see a poll that 74% of Republicans believe Trump was wiretapped. The partisan lens trumps all facts.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

I see a poll that 74% of Republicans believe Trump was wiretapped. The partisan lens trumps all facts.

There is so much irony in your comment.

I keep seeing "wiretapped" used by democrats and the media. Nobody, in their right mind, believes the government is putting a wire on a phone line. The surveillance capabilities are so far beyond that archaic approach.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-defense-idUSKBN17013U

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There is so much irony in your comment.

I keep seeing "wiretapped" used by democrats and the media. Nobody, in their right mind, believes the government is putting a wire on a phone line. The surveillance capabilities are so far beyond that archaic approach.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-defense-idUSKBN17013U

Is that not the exact wording used by the president of the United States? So what is the irony to that?

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

Is that not the exact wording used by the president of the United States? So what is the irony to that?

It's up to you if you want to find comfort in semantics rather than context.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's up to you if you want to find comfort in semantics rather than context.

I know that the government has great capabilities. Ten years ago the SANS training I was at had the instructor flat out say that if the NSA wants your data, they are going to get your data. And maybe the same is true for the Chinese and the Russians. I know the government had that Cisco exploits, and many other exploits from other companies. We do not KNOW that the government used that exploit. It is the same as having the A bomb compared to using the A bomb.

What context am I looking for? Let me point this out, FISA was renewed in 2012. It passed the Senate 73-23. 19 of the no's were Dems, and add in Independent Sanders. We argued FISA here, we argued the 911 security bills passed by Bush 43. Some of the largest proponents were CO and Ladoga, both conservative. Rockfish (who was sighted on the basketball board the other day) was one of the strongest opponents and is liberal. IF people like Flynn and Manafort got caught up in this spying, I frankly agree the spying should never have happened. But the party they back provided most of the votes for it. FISA is the law and so far no one has proven anything was illegal with what has happened. Like I mention above, Nunes has even backed down on his criticism and has ALWAYS stated the evidence he saw was legally gathered. I may hate the law, and I do, but it is the law. CO may suggest the Dems were copying everything and handing them out in subways on DVD, but so far we have no proof of that. Just as we have no proof that Trump has done anything wrong with regards to Russia. I have no problems waiting on evidence to appear for either.

But if you have a movement started to block FISA's next renewal, I'll sure consider joining.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It's up to you if you want to find comfort in semantics rather than context.

You have appeared on this board out of nowhere and are essentially a Propaganda Officer of this administration. Kudos...I guess?

Living in Madison must be hell for you.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

I know that the government has great capabilities. Ten years ago the SANS training I was at had the instructor flat out say that if the NSA wants your data, they are going to get your data. And maybe the same is true for the Chinese and the Russians. I know the government had that Cisco exploits, and many other exploits from other companies. We do not KNOW that the government used that exploit. It is the same as having the A bomb compared to using the A bomb.

What context am I looking for? Let me point this out, FISA was renewed in 2012. It passed the Senate 73-23. 19 of the no's were Dems, and add in Independent Sanders. We argued FISA here, we argued the 911 security bills passed by Bush 43. Some of the largest proponents were CO and Ladoga, both conservative. Rockfish (who was sighted on the basketball board the other day) was one of the strongest opponents and is liberal. IF people like Flynn and Manafort got caught up in this spying, I frankly agree the spying should never have happened. But the party they back provided most of the votes for it. FISA is the law and so far no one has proven anything was illegal with what has happened. Like I mention above, Nunes has even backed down on his criticism and has ALWAYS stated the evidence he saw was legally gathered. I may hate the law, and I do, but it is the law. CO may suggest the Dems were copying everything and handing them out in subways on DVD, but so far we have no proof of that. Just as we have no proof that Trump has done anything wrong with regards to Russia. I have no problems waiting on evidence to appear for either.

But if you have a movement started to block FISA's next renewal, I'll sure consider joining.

If they were truly spying, they should go to prison.

What I do know well is tech. In tech, you have a beta approach to see if it works, and then expand capabiliteis once viability is determined. If the CIA had one or even two ways to gather this information, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. They developed many more ways to gather information on devices used heavily by US citizens. That goes way beyond beta.

Additionally, if the NSA already had most of these capabilities in place, why did the CIA pursue the same type of capability?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If they were truly spying, they should go to prison.

What I do know well is tech. In tech, you have a beta approach to see if it works, and then expand capabiliteis once viability is determined. If the CIA had one or even two ways to gather this information, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. They developed many more ways to gather information on devices used heavily by US citizens. That goes way beyond beta.

Additionally, if the NSA already had most of these capabilities in place, why did the CIA pursue the same type of capability?

Wikileaks leaked the capability, but note they didn't leak proof it had happened. Isn't it very probable whoever knew of its existing knew of it happening? Someone had to actually try all this out. Testing capability is easy, CIA could easily buy a router and test it. They don't need to test it out in the real world, the security on the routers is the same in a CIA lab as in Google's HQ.

The equipment is heavily used by US citizens, and also by citizens around the world. Not only that, but we have both ambassadors to America and their staffs in the US along with UN delegations. It is against the law to steal data from John Smith, American civilian. It is not against the law to steal data from John Smith, UK Agricultural Attache. A fine line to be sure.

If the US carried these actions out against Americans, we must do something about it. So far that evidence does not exist. I am by nature a hater of conspiracy theories. Oswald shot Kennedy, planes flew into the WTC, jets leave contrails that are just water vapor, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and the hacks we are talking about were not carried out against Americans. Now, what can change those opinion is proof. Real documented proof. We don't have that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Additionally, if the NSA already had most of these capabilities in place, why did the CIA pursue the same type of capability?

Oh, and to add, are you suggesting government agencies actually communicate well with one another?

 

[sglowrider]

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

Wikileaks leaked the capability, but note they didn't leak proof it had happened. Isn't it very probable whoever knew of its existing knew of it happening? Someone had to actually try all this out. Testing capability is easy, CIA could easily buy a router and test it.

The equipment is heavily used by US citizens, and also by citizens around the world. Not only that, but we have both ambassadors to America and their staffs in the US along with UN delegations. It is against the law to steal data from John Smith, American civilian. It is not against the law to steal data from John Smith, UK Agricultural Attache. A fine line to be sure.

If the US carried these actions out against Americans, we must do something about it. So far that evidence does not exist. I am by nature a hater of conspiracy theories. Oswald shot Kennedy, planes flew into the WTC, jets leave contrails that are just water vapor, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and the hacks we are talking about were not carried out against Americans. Now, what can change those opinion is proof. Real documented proof. We don't have that.

This demonstrates you are a novice when it comes to technical modeling. No test system is going to replicate completely. It's the fundamental difference between an alpha and beta test. It's why you don't hear of a pilot site being called the "alpha." It's the beta because alpha was done in isolation w/o the ability to replicate all real world scenarios. They certainly could've tested an iPhone or IOS, but they couldn't possibly have tested an iPhone on every router, switch, server, VPN combination required to understand full penetration capabilites without going live.

I would've posted the CNN version, but they aren't covering this story. The beans continue to spill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...p-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This demonstrates you are a novice when it comes to technical modeling. No test system is going to replicate completely. It's the fundamental difference between an alpha and beta test. It's why you don't hear of a pilot site being called the "alpha." It's the beta because alpha was done in isolation w/o the ability to replicate all real world scenarios. They certainly could've tested an iPhone or IOS, but they couldn't possibly have tested an iPhone on every router, switch, server, VPN combination required to understand full penetration capabilites without going live.

I would've posted the CNN version, but they aren't covering this story. The beans continue to spill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...p-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

We will have to define novice in an interesting way. I started as a database programmer in 87. Since I have done workstation support, file/web server admin, network admin, and dba since. That doesn't include time working to get email past spam filters.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

We will have to define novice in an interesting way. I started as a database programmer in 87. Since I have done workstation support, file/web server admin, network admin, and dba since. That doesn't include time working to get email past spam filters.

SECURE, am I right

If you have that background, how do you rationalize the CIA developing that scope of capability, and not utilizing it? It goes so far beyond exploration of the capability or MVP. They've looked at multiple product lines within vendors and across multiple OS.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

SECURE, am I right

If you have that background, how do you rationalize the CIA developing that scope of capability, and not utilizing it? It goes so far beyond exploration of the capability or MVP. They've looked at multiple product lines within vendors and across multiple OS.

Because allbof it is legal overseas and largely against foreigners in America. We can't use the vast majority of our military weaponry against Americans, yet we buy billions of dollars worth. In addition they may want to do red team testing to see what China or Russia are capable of.

I don't know that we have never illegally spied, we may have. I see inferences we have, I do not see proof we have.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

Because allbof it is legal overseas and largely against foreigners in America. We can't use the vast majority of our military weaponry against Americans, yet we buy billions of dollars worth. In addition they may want to do red team testing to see what China or Russia are capable of.

I don't know that we have never illegally spied, we may have. I see inferences we have, I do not see proof we have.

That is a fair response.

I also find it interesting/alarming that 90% of cyber budget for IC as a whole was for offensive capabilies rather than cyber-security development.

 

[sglowrider]

Rinse & repeat.

Trump needs to come up with new ideas for distractions.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

View embedded media

Rinse & repeat.

Trump needs to come up with new ideas for distractions.

And an interesting article highlights the hypocrisy from all sides.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/03/deep-state-works-good-guys-170330124521027.html

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

View embedded media

Yep, you figured it all out. They won't try to slip anything past you ever again.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

Yep, you figured it all out. They won't try to slip anything past you ever again.

It's coming together, and it won't be pretty

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It's coming together, and it won't be pretty

View embedded media

If this is true than we could have ourselves a real bipartisan scandal on our hands. This wouldn't absolve Trump and his associates from colluding with the Russians if that happened. There is not yet any public evidence that happened to date, but it certainly requires investigation. These Russians really just wanted to cast doubt on our Democracy no matter which candidate was elected President and it looks like they've succeeded in a pretty big way.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

If this is true than we could have ourselves a real bipartisan scandal on our hands. This wouldn't absolve Trump and his associates from colluding with the Russians if that happened. There is not yet any public evidence that happened to date, but it certainly requires investigation. These Russians really just wanted to cast doubt on our Democracy no matter which candidate was elected President and it looks like they've succeeded in a pretty big way.

Bring them all down then.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If this is true than we could have ourselves a real bipartisan scandal on our hands. This wouldn't absolve Trump and his associates from colluding with the Russians if that happened. There is not yet any public evidence that happened to date, but it certainly requires investigation. These Russians really just wanted to cast doubt on our Democracy no matter which candidate was elected President and it looks like they've succeeded in a pretty big way.

Any success is not the doings of the Russians, it is mostly the doings of the Russian useful idiots who cannot conceive of any reason Hillary could lose to Trump without Russian help.

As a side bar, the only impact the Russians seemed to have had was the wikileaks disclosure, all of which are genuine. The dems never claimed the e-mails and other materials disclosed were faked. Collusion? I have trouble figuring out what role the Trump campaign could have played in the wikileaks disclosure. Also, the FBI determined that somebody tried to hack the RNC and they were unsuccessful.

 

[Hoosier in Mad Town]

If this is true than we could have ourselves a real bipartisan scandal on our hands. This wouldn't absolve Trump and his associates from colluding with the Russians if that happened. There is not yet any public evidence that happened to date, but it certainly requires investigation. These Russians really just wanted to cast doubt on our Democracy no matter which candidate was elected President and it looks like they've succeeded in a pretty big way.

Absolutely. Looking at this through a partisan lens shows a real lack of grasping the bigger picture.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Absolutely. Looking at this through a partisan lens shows a real lack of grasping the bigger picture.

If your bigger picture is that the government is allowed a higher level of authority to spy on American citizens than it should be, you'll find plenty of bipartisan support for your theory here. However, nothing that you've offered in these threads so far (or anyone else, for that matter, not just you) includes any plausible accusations that anything the Obama administration did was illegal; all of the smoke (whether it leads to a fire or not) comes on the Trump/Russia end of this.

 

[Ladoga]

I listened to the actual words. She ought to lawyer up.

I did too and read direct quotes of her in reported articles. She is tightrope walking on the edge (or perhaps well beyond the edge) of a violation of federal law of the felony variety - the espionage act. I cannot imagine she uses competent counsel and makes those statements.

But now it appears worse with Susan Rice's statements yesterday and today. Seems Rice is the very high ranking Obama administration intelligence official who made the request for unmasking identities of Americans and disseminated the information unmasked. The unmasking is the felony, not (or perhaps not) the surveillance.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Any success is not the doings of the Russians, it is mostly the doings of the Russian useful idiots who cannot conceive of any reason Hillary could lose to Trump without Russian help.

As a side bar, the only impact the Russians seemed to have had was the wikileaks disclosure, all of which are genuine. The dems never claimed the e-mails and other materials disclosed were faked. Collusion? I have trouble figuring out what role the Trump campaign could have played in the wikileaks disclosure. Also, the FBI determined that somebody tried to hack the RNC and they were unsuccessful.

Your first paragraph makes little to no sense. Especially when paired with your second paragraph.

The IC unanimously concludes that Russia launched a multi-prong campaign to influence the election (perhaps even though the results were small - but so was the margin of victory on key states) for Trump.

At some point in your new role as second spokesperson for the administration you can ask why this is ok in your mind.

Or maybe it's because you're really Erik Prince all along.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your first paragraph makes little to no sense. Especially when paired with your second paragraph.

The IC unanimously concludes that Russia launched a multi-prong campaign to influence the election (perhaps even though the results were small - but so was the margin of victory on key states) for Trump.

At some point in your new role as second spokesperson for the administration you can ask why this is ok in your mind.

Or maybe it's because you're really Erik Prince all along.

That's funny. The Democrat and media pants wetting over Russia is raising more questions about election integrity than anything the Russians could have hoped to accomplish on their own. If ya'll would return to sanity on the past election, and then concentrate on the next election, we'd all be better off.

 

[Ladoga]

What are you talking about? Put her quote in my post. Can't get anymore specific than that. If you don't see that her focus was to get the information to the hill, you aren't seeing.

Oh yeah, the hill is not a law enforcement agency, it's a political body, just in case you need to be reminded of that.

They're hopelessly sold out, Co. They'd deny the truth of video and recordings if played for them. These are the kind of people who say day is night if the Democrats tell them to. You won three rounds proving - by her own statements, the likelihood of violations of federal law - unmasking is a felony. But felonies don't bother them. Clinton committed hundreds of felonies and these guys turned into Horatio at the Democratic Bridge - at least verbally - to defend her every crime.

 

[Digressions]

She had to fill out an application and get approval to get the names unmasked. The only law that has been broken was the Flynn leak. So, unless, she leaked Flynn, she's okay. To investigate why/how she was approved to receive the names, would require reading the applications.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

They're hopelessly sold out, Co. They'd deny the truth of video and recordings if played for them. These are the kind of people who say day is night if the Democrats tell them to. You won three rounds proving - by her own statements, the likelihood of violations of federal law - unmasking is a felony. But felonies don't bother them. Clinton committed hundreds of felonies and these guys turned into Horatio at the Democratic Bridge - at least verbally - to defend her every crime.

Liar.

 

[RBB89]

They're hopelessly sold out, Co. They'd deny the truth of video and recordings if played for them. These are the kind of people who say day is night if the Democrats tell them to. You won three rounds proving - by her own statements, the likelihood of violations of federal law - unmasking is a felony. But felonies don't bother them. Clinton committed hundreds of felonies and these guys turned into Horatio at the Democratic Bridge - at least verbally - to defend her every crime.

You are seriously insane. Your entire existence seems to be based around LEFT vs RIGHT.