Trump Disrespects Military... again

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... the Russians could not have hacked the DNC server, the main basis for the Russia story.

Ah. I think this is the problem. You're incredibly behind the power curve. I'll think about re-posting the dozens of links that explain the Comey/Mueller investigation so you can get caught up.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Can't be bothered to visit a troop in a combat zone, though. Or attend a WWI memorial. Or shut his fuckin' mouth about Adm. McRaven.

Can you imagine if Obama had done this? What our Republicans would be doing right now?

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

Mueller has remained tight lipped about his investigation. One would think if he had anything other than satellite issues, he would have disclosed it by now. However, he still could be trying to sweat out his witnesses and the witnesses could be non-cooperative. Even so, the Russian hack never happened. See https://www.mintpressnews.com/intelligence-agenecy-veterans-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/230086/.

A 16 month old, evidence-free, opinion piece by a dozen people posted on an obscure website is your proof the hack never happened?

This is a glaring difference between this and watergate. In watergate, the break-in wasn't questioned by anyone.

And you're dumb enough to think this outdated opinion piece means they represent an equal counter-weight to the overwhelming view of all intelligence agencies?

Here, the retired intelligence professionals thoroughly debunked a hack.

No, they didn't "debunk" a damned thing.

Also, and think about this one, if there had been a hack, the NSA would have the evidence.

You're just repeating what was said in the opinion piece, which assumes the NSA is all knowing and perfect.

Yet, they haven't provided any. Why?

How do you know they haven't? Intelligence agencies said they had "high confidence" the Russians hacked the DNC and the evidence is overwhelming. But you're blowing it off with the wave of a hand, because you came across an opinion piece asserting that it couldn't have been a hack or else the NSA would have known.

Oh, and by the way, your opinion piece was already addressed and debunked several times.

Here

Here

and Here

Moreover, the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD had penetrated the Russian hacking group Cozy Bear in 2014 and in 2015 they observed them hack the DNC in real time, as well as capturing the images of the hackers via a security camera in their workspace. Of course, this kind of stuff only matters to people who want to keep up to date with what's going on.

It was discussed Here and Here

Also, Assange intimated strongly that it was Seth Rich who provided him with the DNC emails and not the Russians.

Julian Assange is a criminal and a mumbling creep who contradicted himself in the span of 10 seconds and Wikileaks has since denied naming him as a source.

Further still, the emails showed that the DNC, Clinton and the mainstream media were conspiring to undermine Sanders - the true collusion.

You don't have the attention span to stay on topic. Even if what you say is true, it doesn't change anything about Russia's interference and their connection with the Trump campaign.

Frankly, this all seems like a misdirection by a smart criminal lawyer who launches an investigation on the police to deflect his client's guilt.

Yes, obviously this was all a set up by Republican Bob Mueller and the Obama administration when intelligence agencies were reporting on Russia's cyber attacks more than a year before Bernie became relevant. In your idiotic world view, it is all a scam just to avoid having to look into the DNC conspiring against Bernie.

Maybe the left just needs to face the fact that Clinton lost.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and get with the program. The only one bringing up Hillary and die-hard idiots like you who are just upset Hillary beat Bernie. This isn't about Hillary. I haven't thought about that woman since she lost the election, to be quite honest. Why would I? She is irrelevant.

She lost because she didn't embrace Sanders' policies, disappointing progressives.

Even if she had embraced all of his policies people like you would have still voted Bernie, so stop with the BS pretending like you know the exact reasons why Hillary lost. We know why she lost. It isn't a mystery. She lost because of the Comey letter. Period. And she lost because the dumbest people on the Left felt it was best not to vote for Hillary even if it meant a Trump presidency. People like you don't get to bitch about how horrible Trump is for America, because you're part of the reason why he's in office.

She lost because she didn't campaign in key states that shouldn't have gone to Trump (maybe there was some truth to her illness at the time?). People hate her. Progressives felt betrayed and didn't vote for her.

Stop pretending you're the majority on the Left. People do hate her but they are irrational in their hatred. And campaigning at key states wouldn't have done anything for her. EA said there is little evidence to show how that helps any candidate anymore.

As for playing into the right's narrative, how about we look for the truth and forget how religious thinking and politics unfortunately mix?

Religious thinking! Like the faith-based conspiracy theory you're pushing based on zero evidence whatsoever? All you got is an old opinion piece that has since been blown to pieces by subsequent evidence, and you think evidence doesn't exist unless Mueller is tweeting it out on a daily basis for you to see. That's not how these investigations work.

Trump is the clown that keeps giving, there simply is no need for this dubious Russian investigation. How about putting up a fresh face who is a little more progressive and a little less militaristic and less beholding to wall street? Almost anyone, except Clinton, could easily beat Mr. Clown.

Bernie couldn't get 66 million votes in a million years. Hillary destroyed him when it came to the minority voters, and that's something you're not going to be able to make excuses for with the DNC "collusion" narrative. Hillary still got 66 million votes while having everything working against her, even her own "Liberal media."

[_Dr Exiled]

... the Russians could not have hacked the DNC server, the main basis for the Russia story.

Ah. I think this is the problem. You're incredibly behind the power curve. I'll think about re-posting the dozens of links that explain the Comey/Mueller investigation so you can get caught up.

- Doc

I know the mainstream media has tried to bury the inconvenient facts about guccifer 2.0's dubious hacking claims and how the FBI didn't even examine the DNC server, letting the highly conflicted crowdstrike group do the work for the FBI. Why that happened is a mystery. If I let the opposing party control the evidence like this, I would might be disbarred. It is certainly malpractice to do so.

I realize Mueller has moved on, because there isn't a good case to be made for russian hacking and there never was. This is the problem with these types of investigations in search of a crime: it doesn't matter whether the original case can be made because Mueller was given such a wide area to investigate, he can use Trump trying to stop the nonsense as a predicate to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. I can hear Rachelle Maddow breathlessly claiming right now how we should all stay tuned because Mueller has the goods and any minute he will fry Trump for merely ranting about the witch hunt ......

In any event, so you understand where I am coming from, I believe that the decision by President Clinton to take money from wall street, under the guise of a "third way" was a huge mistake for the democrats. Progressives have had to take a back seat ever since because the rich 1% donors do not want anything progressive to come out of Washington as it is bad for business. Democrats have become moderate Republicans, sell outs to wall street, and main stream Republicans have moved toward fascism, Trump being the face of it. We now have laws on the books due to an unreasonable fear of terrorism (defined as taking positions against the powers that be) that allow the government to label anyone as a terrorist and strip them summarily of their constitutional rights. Wages have stagnated. Monopolies control almost everything we buy from walmart to health insurance. Small business is dying out.

In the face of this, we have a sore loser creating a debunked russia narrative and religiously rabid democrats buying into the Trump as devil FUBAR, diverting our attention away from what we should be concentrating on - the true problem of the 1% against the rest of us. But, tabloid t.v. sells and Trump is a loud mouth idiot that is easy to hate.

[_Dr Exiled]

Religious thinking! Like the faith-based conspiracy theory you're pushing based on zero evidence whatsoever? All you got is an old opinion piece that has since been blown to pieces by subsequent evidence, and you think evidence doesn't exist unless Mueller is tweeting it out on a daily basis for you to see. That's not how these investigations work.

Where was the hacking by the russians proven? I must have missed it. Did the FBI finally examine the DNC server? You know the FBI oddly let crowdstrike do the examination for it and didn't question its findings. https://slate.com/technology/2017/05/the-fbi-is-harder-to-trust-on-the-dnc-hack-because-it-relied-on-crowdstrikes-analysis.html Also, 17 agencies' hack claim was retracted at the end of this article by the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html?_r=0, reducing it to four. Seymour Hersh, of the NY Times, says an assessment is just opinion and that the russian hacking assessment is thin on evidence https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/seymour-hersh-blasts-media-for-uncritically-promoting-russian-hacking-story/. But I am obviously out of my mind ..... RUSSIA ....

[_Kevin Graham]

Where was the hacking by the russians proven? I must have missed it.

Yes, you miss everything it seems. Have you been living literally under a rock the past year? I just told you Dutch intelligence said they literally witnessed Russians hacking into the DNC in real time. What is your response? To ignore it and then to derail yet again on another bogus claim by the conspiratorial Right:

Did the FBI finally examine the DNC server? You know the FBI oddly let crowdstrike do the examination for it and didn't question its findings.

Again, this is old news and instead of educating yourself on what's going on here you just rely on old opinion pieces that have been debunked. For instance:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... -explained

It is widely believed that CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC to respond to the hack, gave an identical image of some of the servers to the FBI, which experts I’ve spoken to say would be more useful than giving the FBI a physical server itself. I say “widely believed,” because we don’t know exactly what CrowdStrike gave to the FBI. However, in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey told Congress that the FBI got an “appropriate substitute” from CrowdStrike, and Mueller’s indictment makes clear that the FBI has lots of information about the hack from both within the DNC and from other sources. CrowdStrike declined a request for comment from Motherboard.

I called up Thomas Rid, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies to help explain the technical details behind this type of forensic investigation. Rid, who wrote a detailed explanation about why Russia was likely behind the DNC hack for Motherboard in July 2016, told me that “from a forensic point of view, the question of a server at this stage doesn’t make any sense.”

“To really investigate a high profile intrusion like the DNC hack, you have to look beyond the victim network,” Rid said. “You have to look at the infrastructure—the command and control sites that were used to get in that are not going to be on any server ... looking at one server is just one isolated piece of infrastructure.”

"For decades, it has been industry-standard forensic and digital evidence handling practice to conduct analysis on forensic images instead of original evidence." Even so, what CrowdStrike gave the FBI is likely better than if it had seized and analyzed a physical box.

“To keep it simple, let’s say there’s only one server. CrowdStrike goes in, makes a complete image including a memory dump of everything that was in the memory of the server at the time, including traffic and connections at the time,” Rid said. “You have that image from the machine live in the network including its memory content, versus a server that someone physically carries into the FBI headquarters. It’s unplugged, so there’s no memory content because it’s powered down. That physical piece of hardware is less valuable for an investigation than the onsite image and data extraction from a machine that is up and running. The idea a physical server would add any value doesn’t make any sense.”

What Rid means is that after a hack, some of the evidence of who did it and how they did it may be fleeting. It could be in the server’s memory, the RAM, and not stored on its hard drive. (Hackers use “fileless” malware precisely for this reason.) To preserve evidence in cases like these, incident responders need to make an image—essentially a copy of the server in that exact same state at that exact same time—so they can look at it afterwards. Think about this like when investigators take pictures of the crime scene or victim.

Then you go on to derail about a number I never mentioned. Did I ever say there were 17 agencies? No, so what's this all about?

Also, 17 agencies' hack claim was retracted at the end of this article by the New York Times reducing it to four

Yes, and those four intelligence agencies were the four big ones that matter. The article says, and I quote: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency."

You know, that same NSA which you previously referenced as not having an opinion nor any evidence for Russian Hacking.

Seymour Hersh, of the New York Times, says an assessment is just opinion and that the russian hacking assessment is thin on evidence

Uh huh, in an article that is even six months older than all the other outdated crap you've been referencing.

[_Dr Exiled]

The Dutch Newspaper Story:

It would be nice if the dutch story were independently verified or if the video of the Russians were released to the public. Or release the evidence the dutch found. The dutch government or military didn't confirm the story. It's just hearsay at this point, based on anonymous sources. Maybe it's true but I'd like to see more if you have it. Also, it goes against what Assange intimated on Dutch T.V. about his contact being Seth Rich.

Crowdstrike:

There is a problem with chain of custody. What you quote may be how computer forensics is done, but the FBI should have taken control of the server and then proceeded how you outline. Crowdstrike was originally hired by Clinton and the DNC, creating a big conflict of interest. Hence, the chain of custody problem, a killer for prosecutors.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

A short rundown on Admiral McRaven's life:

- 40 years of military service

- Broke his back in a training exercise, still went to Iraq and helped capture Saddam Hussein

- Cmdr of the SEALs that killed Osama bin Laden

- Eventually made head of all US Special Forces, a position held by only 8 people before him.

So yeah, Trump picked the wrong dude to “F” with. And Trump's remarks about Hillary were wrong - Admiral McRaven said that he did not support Hillary. He did support Obama and Bush.

Despite breaking his back in a training exercise, he still went to Iraq and helped capture Saddam Hussein as part of Task Force 121. Regarding his High Altitude Low Opening training accident:

I quickly checked my altimeter, made sure I wasn't spinning, and then looked around me to ensure no jumper was too close to me. Twenty seconds later I had fallen to the pull altitude of 5,500, feet.

Suddenly, I looked below me and another jumper had slid beneath me, intersecting my path to the ground. He pulled his rip cord, and I could see the pilot chute deploying the main parachute from his backpack. Immediately, I thrust my arms to my side, forcing my head to the ground in an attempt to get away from the blossoming chute. It was too late.

The jumper's chute popped open in front of me like an air bag, hitting me at 120 miles per hour. I bounced off the main canopy and spun out of control, barely conscious from the impact. For seconds I spun head over heels, trying to get stable again. I couldn't see my altimeter and was unaware of how far I had fallen.

Instinctively, I reached for my rip cord and pulled. The pilot chute jettisoned from its small pouch in the back of the parachute but wrapped around my leg as I continued to tumble towards the ground. As I struggled to untangle myself the situation got worse. The main parachute partially deployed but in doing so twirled around my other leg.

Craning my neck toward the sky, I could see my legs were bound by two sets of risers, the long nylon straps that connect the main parachute to the harness on my back. One riser had wrapped around one leg, the other riser around the other leg. The main parachute was fully out of the backpack but hung up somewhere on my body.

As I struggled to break free of the entanglement, suddenly I felt the canopy lift off my body and begin to open. Looking toward my legs, I knew what was coming next.

Within seconds, the canopy caught air. The two risers, one wrapped around each leg, suddenly and violently pulled apart, taking my legs with them. My pelvis separated instantly the force of the opening ripped my lower torso. The thousand small muscles that connect the pelvis to the body were torn from their hinges.

My mouth dropped open and I let out a scream that could be heard in Mexico. Searing pain arched through my body, sending waves pulsating downward to my pelvis and upward to my head. Violent, muscular convulsions racked my upper torso, shooting more pain through my arms and legs. Now, like having an out-of-body experience, I became aware of my screaming and tried to control it, but the pain was too intense.

Still head down and falling too fast, I turned myself upright in the harness, reliving some of the pressure on my pelvis and back.

Fifteen hundred feet.

I had fallen over four thousand feet before the parachute deployed. The good news: I had a full canopy over my head. The bad news: I was broken apart by the impact of the opening.

I landed over two miles from the drop zone. Within a few minutes the drop zone crew and an ambulance arrived. I was taken to the trauma hospital in downtown San Diego. By the next day I was out of surgery. The accident had ripped my pelvis apart by almost five inches. The muscles in my stomach had become detached from the pelvic bone and the muscles in my back and legs were severely damaged from the opening shock. I had a large titanium plate screwed into my pelvis and a long scapular screw drilled into my backside for stability.

He was also diagnosed with Leukemia while serving in Afghanistan. Trump is just the biggest piece of crap ever to be President. He's Bush minus 50 IQ points with a Twitter account. I damned hate this guy. “F” Cadet Bone Spurs.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I don't objectively care much about this. Using the military as campaign props, which the Trump admin has done several times now, is far worse. Abuse of civilian control of the military, in addition to being bad in of itself, can weaken norms surrounding that control. But what is annoying is that Republicans pretend to care about "the troops" almost to a psychotic degree in a conservative version of political correctness. Kneeling during the national anthem to protest civil rights abuses by the police gins up the outrage machine because this supposedly disrespects "the troops," which is just ridiculous. Then, you have an overt example of actual disrespect that puts in perspective how phony that political theater is.

[_EAllusion]

Go to a gathering of Republicans and suggest that the US military attracts psychopaths who get off on authority and hurting people and shouldn't be thought of heroes merely because of their service. This is objectively true, mind you. But before you do this - and this is important - don't be Donald Trump. Whatever you do, you cannot be Donald Trump. Are you not Donald Trump? Good. Now watch the insane rage you get and try to make it out alive.

If you happen to be Donald Trump, you can claim genuine US military heroes are complete scum or whatever. It's fine. Do what you want.