@Metal-Brain saidWhy do you keep writing the word collusion?
"trump wants to deflect away from Epstein"
I agree, but that does not change the fact nobody can prove Russian Collusion to interfere in the US election. You and no1 have no evidence.
@Metal-Brain saidI get it; you're stupid. You've played this ridiculous game for almost 10 years now.
LOL!!!!!!!!!
"We did not have concrete evidence that
data was exfiltrated from the DNC"
I have high confidence you are an idiot. Do I have evidence?
Dude, you can read the quote above you posted. Indicators is not evidence. You know that. Are you trying to fool yourself? Because you are not fooling anyone else.
What Henry said, repeatedly, is while they did not see the data being exfiltrated (because they were called in after the hack), they are confident it was. A non-moron would understand that; why would someone go to all the trouble of hacking such a system and not extricate the data? And why you keep coming up with this is mind boggling anyway; we know for an absolute fact the data was exfiltrated; it wound up all over Wikileaks a few weeks later.
This whole argument of yours is beyond idiotic and misunderstanding Henry's testimony is absurd; he unequivocally said that he believed the Russians hacked the data and that the totality of evidence says they exfiltrated it. 100 or 1000 more posts where you claim differently what change that.
@no1marauder saidDid they hear Henry's testimony before or after they wrote that report? Stop evading the question. We both know he said "no evidence". Only morons think that is debatable.
I'll bet a $100 you never read Henry's testimony.
I gave the link and he explicitly says the Russians did the hack. And we know the files were exfiltrated; they were all over Wikileaks.
but..but... indicators...LOL!
There are indicators you are in denial.
@no1marauder saidNo, that is not what Henry said. He said there was "no evidence" the data was exfiltrated. Are you lying to me or yourself? Your denial is so bad you are lying about his quotes now.
I get it; you're stupid. You've played this ridiculous game for almost 10 years now.
What Henry said, repeatedly, is while they did not see the data being exfiltrated (because they were called in after the hack), they are confident it was. A non-moron would understand that; why would someone go to all the trouble of hacking such a system and not extricate the data? And ...[text shortened]... dence says they exfiltrated it. 100 or 1000 more posts where you claim differently what change that.
How do you live with yourself?
@Metal-Brain saidI gave his quotes and conclusions.
No, that is not what Henry said. He said there was "no evidence" the data was exfiltrated. Are you lying to me or yourself? Your denial is so bad you are lying about his quotes now.
How do you live with yourself?
The idea that the data was hacked but not exfiltrated is too goddamn ridiculous to take seriously esp. since it was all over Wikileaks weeks later. Yet, that's what you're claiming he said.
What part of that don't you understand?
@no1marauder saidYou lied about his quote. He didn't say that.
I gave his quotes and conclusions.
The idea that the data was hacked but not exfiltrated is too goddamn ridiculous to take seriously esp. since it was all over Wikileaks weeks later. Yet, that's what you're claiming he said.
What part of that don't you understand?
He said "no evidence".
@wildgrass saidWhy do you object to me using that word? Isn't it accurate?
Why do you keep writing the word collusion?
1 edit
@Metal-Brain saidI didn't lie about anything: his testimony regarding exfiltration
You lied about his quote. He didn't say that.
He said "no evidence".
"MR. HENRY: We didn't watch it happen. There's not a network sensor
that actually saw traffic actually leaving, but there's circumstantial evidence that it
happened." p. 76 https://ia803409.us.archive.org/11/items/2019-01-03-alexander-n-mtr/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted_text.pdf
And to correct you yet again:
"circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial; the accused may have been shooting at the escaping killer or merely have been a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer had dropped it.
The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence
You never read his testimony and got a misleading impression from an unreliable source.
@wildgrass said""The Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump," the report reads. "The Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA' s interference in the 2016 U.S. election." https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-in-2016
Why do you keep writing the word collusion?
This explains why Manafort sent them internal campaign polling data i.e. so they could more effectively target their social media campaign.
That sure look like "collusion" to me.
@no1marauder saidCircumstantial evidence is not evidence.
I didn't lie about anything:
"MR. HENRY: We didn't watch it happen. There's not a network sensor
that actually saw traffic actually leaving, but there's circumstantial evidence that it
happened." p. 76 https://ia803409.us.archive.org/11/items/2019-01-03-alexander-n-mtr/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted_text.pdf
And to correct you yet again:
"circumstantial ...[text shortened]... -evidence
You never read his testimony and got a misleading impression from an unreliable source.
"Indicators" is not evidence.
You don't know it was Russia. Assange even said it was not Russia and all you do is repeat the claim he lied without evidence. Assange strongly implied it was Seth Rich in front of a witness who saw Seth fall down and die which does not fit a robbery, but we are supposed to believe it was a botched robbery.
Do you believe there was no Epstein list covered up and he killed himself too?
Or are you like Alan Dershowitz and believe Epstein killed himself with help from the guards?
@no1marauder saidPolling data? LOL!
""The Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump," the report reads. "The Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA' s interference in the 2016 U.S. election." https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-i ...[text shortened]... could more effectively target their social media campaign.
That sure look like "collusion" to me.
Who in their right mind could believe that could be used to interfere in our elections? And collusion is a secret. That is why I use that word a lot. Manafort did not keep it a secret so it was not collusion. Why would he? It is just polling data. LOL!!!!
I can just see it now. You running for public office and keeping a tight grip on your precious polling data. LOL!!!!!
@Metal-Brain saidAre you nuts? Manafort kept it a secret until 2022.
Polling data? LOL!
Who in their right mind could believe that could be used to interfere in our elections? And collusion is a secret. That is why I use that word a lot. Manafort did not keep it a secret so it was not collusion. Why would he? It is just polling data. LOL!!!!
I can just see it now. You running for public office and keeping a tight grip on your precious polling data. LOL!!!!!
And polling data is used all the time to decide where and how to target ads and other outreach to voters. And the Russian government through the IRA was flooding US social media with pro-Trump and anti-Hillary political "information".
It all makes sense, unless you're a stubborn moron.
@Metal-Brain saidIt's cagey. There was Russian interference, Trump's team was involved, people went to prison. Despite acknowledging this, you keep asking again and again and again about collision, a 'crime' that's irrelevant to the main points and is unprovable. Why?
Why do you object to me using that word? Isn't it accurate?
@no1marauder saidYes sure does.
""The Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump," the report reads. "The Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA' s interference in the 2016 U.S. election." https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/768319934/senate-report-russians-used-used-social-media-mostly-to-target-race-i ...[text shortened]... could more effectively target their social media campaign.
That sure look like "collusion" to me.
But Mueller didn't use that specific word so that's what the lemmings cling to.
@no1marauder saidHow do you know he kept it secret? You said he admitted it. What secret?
Are you nuts? Manafort kept it a secret until 2022.
And polling data is used all the time to decide where and how to target ads and other outreach to voters. And the Russian government through the IRA was flooding US social media with pro-Trump and anti-Hillary political "information".
It all makes sense, unless you're a stubborn moron.
I didn't tell you I got run off the road a few days ago, but I wasn't trying to keep it a secret.
Poll data isn't hard to get. You post poll data on here often. You are being incredibly silly. As if the Russians run Trump's campaign with that poll data. LOL!
Come on man. You are not that stupid. Just admit you have no evidence of Russian election interference. Poll data is harmless and anybody can get it if they really want it.