The Russia Hoax - Not
forget it
I can't make this any plainer.
do you even understand what the chain of evidence means? He's specifically talking about EVIDENCE.
NOTHING MORE.
Why do you think he's using that word? He's saying that if this were to go to trial, it would be tossed out because the chain of evidence was compromised. Because the link between the physical server and the server image has been broken. That is all that he's trying to say.
he's not talking about the quality of Crowdstrike's analysis or whether they're trustworthy or not. Clearly.
And he's certainly not saying that having access to the server is essential to make an adequate technical analysis.
drummerboy said:
forget it
I can't make this any plainer.
do you even understand what the chain of evidence means? He's specifically talking about EVIDENCE.
NOTHING MORE.
Why do you think he's using that word? He's saying that if this were to go to trial, it would be tossed out because the chain of evidence was compromised. Because the link between the physical server and the server image has been broken. That is all that he's trying to say.
he's not talking about the quality of Crowdstrike's analysis or whether they're trustworthy or not. Clearly.
And he's certainly not saying that having access to the server is essential to make an adequate technical analysis.
He's saying that what Crowdstrike is giving us is not trustworthy enough to hold up in court. He's saying that if you have complete control over the server, such as Crowdstrike had, than you cannot trust what they tell you.
He is not OK with Crowdstrike being the only ones who had access to the physical server. If you disagree than show me where he says that is not a problem.
Here is another ten minute Bill Binney video (from our new Larouche friends) where he talks about the wikileaks downloads, and how someone (he says the CIA) tries to make it look like Russia by using a specific program to install Russian signatures. He also talks about Shawn Henry's testimony and how he saw the data ready to be exfiltrated and how later they saw it exfiltrated but could not say it was the Russian who did it--because, according to Binney, the speed of download meant it had to be downloaded to a thumb or similar drive. Which is why Henry could not say it was the Russians for sure.
nan said:
Hmm, these two statements seem to be at odds.
=====================================================
nan
Why do you see them at odds? The Russians possibly hacking into the DNC, does not mean the Russians stole the emails. That's what Julian Assange said, and I believe him more than I would ever believe the mainstream hysterical propaganda media.
Well, it seems hard to reconcile "Of course it is POSSIBLE that the Russians hacked into the DNC" with "The Russians had zilch to do with that."
But maybe what you mean is you believe it's possible that the Russians hacked the DNC, but don't believe it's possible they stole the emails. Which is an odd position to take -- it's possible they hacked, but impossible they took the emails? But if Assange said it, well I guess it must be true, no questions, because you'll take what he says purely on faith (and then insist you don't have double standards). You'll believe anything so long as the person saying it hates the right people, and dispute anything no matter how straightforward if you think it benefits the wrong people.
nan said:
Hold - I will put some more Bill Binney videos here.
please don't.
how did his accusation that Obama wiretapped Trump work out?
nan said:
He also talks about Shawn Henry's testimony and how he saw the data ready to be exfiltrated and how later they saw it exfiltrated but could not say it was the Russian who did it--because, according to Binney, the speed of download meant it had to be downloaded to a thumb or similar drive. Which is why Henry could not say it was the Russians for sure.
That's not what the transcript of Henry's testimony said, but is there any point noting this? You'd insist that water wasn't wet if you were convinced admitting it were would somehow reflect well on Clinton.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
forget it
I can't make this any plainer.
do you even understand what the chain of evidence means? He's specifically talking about EVIDENCE.
NOTHING MORE.
Why do you think he's using that word? He's saying that if this were to go to trial, it would be tossed out because the chain of evidence was compromised. Because the link between the physical server and the server image has been broken. That is all that he's trying to say.
he's not talking about the quality of Crowdstrike's analysis or whether they're trustworthy or not. Clearly.
And he's certainly not saying that having access to the server is essential to make an adequate technical analysis.
He's saying that what Crowdstrike is giving us is not trustworthy enough to hold up in court. He's saying that if you have complete control over the server, such as Crowdstrike had, than you cannot trust what they tell you.
He is not OK with Crowdstrike being the only ones who had access to the physical server. If you disagree than show me where he says that is not a problem.
g d it.
It's not about "trustworthiness". It's about the CHAIN OF EVIDENCE, which you still haven't even acknowledged. He's only talking about a technical legal issue.
Also, in that larouche interview, (the first one), he says (6:41) that "ANY data collected by the NSA is classified", and if the NSA then releases anything to the public, it has to be redacted. And because the data in the indictment is not redacted, it couldn't have come from the NSA.
Think about that for a second. He is saying that the NSA has to redact EVERYTHING they ever release to the public, because ANY DATA they collect is classified.
That is ridiculous.
Binney is ridiculous.
I'm done with Binney, he's a damn crack pot.
And learn about the chain of evidence, there will be a quiz.
PVW said:
Well, it seems hard to reconcile "Of course it is POSSIBLE that the Russians hacked into the DNC" with "The Russians had zilch to do with that."
But maybe what you mean is you believe it's possible that the Russians hacked the DNC, but don't believe it's possible they stole the emails. Which is an odd position to take -- it's possible they hacked, but impossible they took the emails? But if Assange said it, well I guess it must be true, no questions, because you'll take what he says purely on faith (and then insist you don't have double standards). You'll believe anything so long as the person saying it hates the right people, and dispute anything no matter how straightforward if you think it benefits the wrong people.
I don't think the Russians hacked the DNC. I think it was cooked up to look like they did, which is consistent with Sussman's aim to create a campaign to hurt Donald Trump. The fake Steele Dossier and the crapola Alfa Bank theory point to a person who is not on the up and up.
I think Bill Binney gives compelling evidence as to what happened, but I have no way of checking his technical explanation. I am impressed that he did actual physical tests to see the times. I think he answered his critics well and they have not come back with more questions or concerns. Like Assange, he is also personally smeared and I've seen those smears repeated by unthinking MOL posters so the propaganda is working. Clearly Binney's stance is a huge threat to the establishment who tries to silence him.
Sean Henry's testimony gives us proof that Crowdstrike could not say the Russians took the emails. This is important because the media went hogwild stating that the Russians hacked the DNC as unquestionable fact. Did you listen to the two Binney interviews? He says the documents were set up to be exfiltrated and later they were exfiltrated but the speed of the exfiltration makes it clear that it was an inside job, not a Russian hack. Henry was not asked about the speed. There is also debate about the "markers" they used to identify it was Russia in the first place.
And yes, I trust Assange more than I trust the DNC or the FBI. Wikileaks has a 100% track record of what they published being true. Julian Assange is a man of great integrity who is being prosecuted because he told the truth about war. He has put his life on the line for truth. The DNC hack is also used to smear him as someone who also worked for Trump and I know that to be false.
The stolen DNC emails Wikileaks published were real emails--the DNC could not pretend they were not. The DNC, as shown by the published emails, is a dishonest, cheating group of Wall street beholden scoundrels. They don't give a rat's **** about ordinary people. The FBI/CIA also have a long history of dishonesty. I am basing my trust of Assange and distrust of DNC/FBI/CIA on their history and track records of truthtelling.
nan said:
PVW said:
Well, it seems hard to reconcile "Of course it is POSSIBLE that the Russians hacked into the DNC" with "The Russians had zilch to do with that."
But maybe what you mean is you believe it's possible that the Russians hacked the DNC, but don't believe it's possible they stole the emails. Which is an odd position to take -- it's possible they hacked, but impossible they took the emails? But if Assange said it, well I guess it must be true, no questions, because you'll take what he says purely on faith (and then insist you don't have double standards). You'll believe anything so long as the person saying it hates the right people, and dispute anything no matter how straightforward if you think it benefits the wrong people.
I don't think the Russians hacked the DNC. I think it was cooked up to look like they did, which is consistent with Sussman's aim to create a campaign to hurt Donald Trump. The fake Steele Dossier and the crapola Alfa Bank theory point to a person who is not on the up and up.
I think Bill Binney gives compelling evidence as to what happened, but I have no way of checking his technical explanation. I am impressed that he did actual physical tests to see the times. I think he answered his critics well and they have not come back with more questions or concerns. Like Assange, he is also personally smeared and I've seen those smears repeated by unthinking MOL posters so the propaganda is working. Clearly Binney's stance is a huge threat to the establishment who tries to silence him.
Sean Henry's testimony gives us proof that Crowdstrike could not say the Russians took the emails. This is important because the media went hogwild stating that the Russians hacked the DNC as unquestionable fact. Did you listen to the two Binney interviews? He says the documents were set up to be exfiltrated and later they were exfiltrated but the speed of the exfiltration makes it clear that it was an inside job, not a Russian hack. Henry was not asked about the speed. There is also debate about the "markers" they used to identify it was Russia in the first place.
And yes, I trust Assange more than I trust the DNC or the FBI. Wikileaks has a 100% track record of what they published being true. Julian Assange is a man of great integrity who is being prosecuted because he told the truth about war. He has put his life on the line for truth. The DNC hack is also used to smear him as someone who also worked for Trump and I know that to be false.
The stolen DNC emails Wikileaks published were real emails--the DNC could not pretend they were not. The DNC, as shown by the published emails, is a dishonest, cheating group of Wall street beholden scoundrels. They don't give a rat's **** about ordinary people. The FBI/CIA also have a long history of dishonesty. I am basing my trust of Assange and distrust of DNC/FBI/CIA on their history and track records of truthtelling.
Facts ain't ever gonna penetrate that mess.
drummerboy said:
g d it.
It's not about "trustworthiness". It's about the CHAIN OF EVIDENCE, which you still haven't even acknowledged. He's only talking about a technical legal issue.
Also, in that larouche interview, (the first one), he says (6:41) that "ANY data collected by the NSA is classified", and if the NSA then releases anything to the public, it has to be redacted. And because the data in the indictment is not redacted, it couldn't have come from the NSA.
Think about that for a second. He is saying that the NSA has to redact EVERYTHING they ever release to the public, because ANY DATA they collect is classified.
That is ridiculous.
Binney is ridiculous.
I'm done with Binney, he's a damn crack pot.
And learn about the chain of evidence, there will be a quiz
Bill Binney spent 36 years working at the NSA in a high level position. I think he knows more about the NSA than you do.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
g d it.
It's not about "trustworthiness". It's about the CHAIN OF EVIDENCE, which you still haven't even acknowledged. He's only talking about a technical legal issue.
Also, in that larouche interview, (the first one), he says (6:41) that "ANY data collected by the NSA is classified", and if the NSA then releases anything to the public, it has to be redacted. And because the data in the indictment is not redacted, it couldn't have come from the NSA.
Think about that for a second. He is saying that the NSA has to redact EVERYTHING they ever release to the public, because ANY DATA they collect is classified.
That is ridiculous.
Binney is ridiculous.
I'm done with Binney, he's a damn crack pot.
And learn about the chain of evidence, there will be a quiz
Bill Binney spent 36 years working at the NSA in a high level position. I think he knows more about the NSA than you do.
good non-answer. maybe his problem is that he's a poor communicator. He said those words. But you don't believe in inferences, so I guess it doesn't matter that he's talking nonsense.
Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 can't be trusted.
Anyone who claims there was fraud in the 2020 election can't be trusted.
Anyone who appears on Infowars can't be trusted.
Binney has 3 strikes against him.
And have you read this yet?
https://www.techdirt.com/tag/tim-leonard/
4 strikes.
drummerboy said:
Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 can't be trusted.
Anyone who claims there was fraud in the 2020 election can't be trusted.
Anyone who appears on Infowars can't be trusted.
Binney has 3 strikes against him.
Anyone who fell for the Russiagate hoax can't be trusted
Anyone who thinks the DNC emails do not reveal a plot to sabotage Bernie Sanders can't be trusted.
Anyone who denies the US involvement in the Ukraine coup and subsequent government can't be trusted.
You have 4 strikes against you. You got an extra point for number 1.
Binney has been shunned from mainstream media. He has to get his message out as best he can. Infowars has a huge audience. Why do you think Glen Greenwald goes on Tucker Carlson? Why did Bernie go on Joe Rogan?
I don't know much about the argument for fraud in the 2020 election but the US election system has lots of problems.
His vote is his choice. I understand why he would not want to vote for Hillary.
You don't have to like him but that does not prove his theory is not true. He's clearly good at math and computers. Voting not so much.
I've been seeing a lot of references to Binney being involved with QAnon. I may or may not report back on that.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 can't be trusted.
Anyone who claims there was fraud in the 2020 election can't be trusted.
Anyone who appears on Infowars can't be trusted.
Binney has 3 strikes against him.
Anyone who fell for the Russiagate hoax can't be trusted
Anyone who thinks the DNC emails do not reveal a plot to sabotage Bernie Sanders can't be trusted.
Anyone who denies the US involvement in the Ukraine coup and subsequent government can't be trusted.
You have 4 strikes against you. You got an extra point for number 1.
Binney has been shunned from mainstream media. He has to get his message out as best he can. Infowars has a huge audience. Why do you think Glen Greenwald goes on Tucker Carlson? Why did Bernie go on Joe Rogan?
I don't know much about the argument for fraud in the 2020 election but the US election system has lots of problems.
His vote is his choice. I understand why he would not want to vote for Hillary.
You don't have to like him but that does not prove his theory is not true. He's clearly good at math and computers. Voting not so much.
What time does your shuttle to Roswell leave and will you be wearing the funny hat again?
OMG - this thread is turning into the Epoch times!
nan - do you actually respond on any other platforms - I can't believe you have the time to churn out everything you do - especially when you hate all of us MSM zombies.
The thing about Binney is that you had spent so much time defending his initial findings which he ended up saying “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”.
The part he did agree with was not his research - it was one conclusion from the Leonard g-2 space.
So what is it Binney actually proved - I'm sooooooooooooo confused.
It's interesting to look back at articles like this:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/09/the-durham-indictment-fuels-the-real-russia-hoax/
Corn was pretty spot on the ridiculous claims of the indictment.
But the thing that is interesting in the time between the start and the conclusion of the indictment was how many times the Greenwald's and Trumpers used this allegation as vindication for the "Hoax".
jamie said:
OMG - this thread is turning into the Epoch times!
nan - do you actually respond on any other platforms - I can't believe you have the time to churn out everything you do - especially when you hate all of us MSM zombies.
The thing about Binney is that you had spent so much time defending his initial findings which he ended up saying “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”.
The part he did agree with was not his research - it was one conclusion from the Leonard g-2 space.
So what is it Binney actually proved - I'm sooooooooooooo confused.
I would love to see the paintings she has been doing while churning out all these theories…she’s gifted.
drummerboy said:
I've been seeing a lot of references to Binney being involved with QAnon. I may or may not report back on that.
I have not been beating my wife but I just want to point out that this makes you look worse than Binney.
Jaytee said:
I would love to see the paintings she has been doing while churning out all these theories…she’s gifted.
My new paintings are just plain old landscapes while I try to figure out watercolor. My old oil paintings on the other hand. . .
nan said:
drummerboy said:
I've been seeing a lot of references to Binney being involved with QAnon. I may or may not report back on that.
I have not been beating my wife but I just want to point out that this makes you look worse than Binney.
Seeing something is a lot different than promoting something.
OTOH - what I've seen so far is no nuttier than the guilt-by-association used by the pro-hoaxers.
drummerboy said:
Seeing something is a lot different than promoting something.
OTOH - what I've seen so far is no nuttier than the guilt-by-association used by the pro-hoaxers.
Bill Binney worked for NSA for 36 years. When it comes to cyber crime he is an expert, not some high school dropout living in his mother's basement, uncritically reading nuts on the dark web. When it comes to his views on humanity or who to vote for, you can ignore him. When it comes to topics related to computers or surveillance (which is a big part of his niche and also why he gets smeared), you have to take him seriously. You can disagree with him, but not by googling "things that make Bill Biney a weirdo so I can win my online argument."
What makes him a cyber crime expert? That's not his background. His NSA background was in cryptography, I think.
His transfer speed theory is kind of amateurish is you ask me.
I asked this before but got no answer: How does he know what the maximum transfer speeds were on the DNC network? Seems central to his thesis, yet I don't see how he can know that.
drummerboy said:
Anyone who voted for Trump in 2016 can't be trusted.
Anyone who claims there was fraud in the 2020 election can't be trusted.
Anyone who appears on Infowars can't be trusted.
Binney has 3 strikes against him.
And have you read this yet?
https://www.techdirt.com/tag/tim-leonard/
4 strikes.
The "claims there was fraud in the 2020 election" is, by itself, enough of a red flag.
nan said:
I don't think the Russians hacked the DNC.
So just to be clear, you've changed your mind and no longer believe it's possible that Russia hacked the DNC?
PVW said:
So just to be clear, you've changed your mind and no longer believe it's possible that Russia hacked the DNC?
I have not changed my mind. I don't think Russia hacked the DNC. I can't prove that yet so, unlike the mainstream media who reports on possibilities as though they were fact, I have to say that is is possible that Russia hacked the DNC and took the emails.
nan said:
I have not changed my mind. I don't think Russia hacked the DNC. I can't prove that yet so, unlike the mainstream media who reports on possibilities as though they were fact, I have to say that is is possible that Russia hacked the DNC and took the emails.
But you believe that "Hillary has been factually found to be at the heart of Russiagate."
How can it be possible that the Russians hacked the DNC while simultaneously be factually proven that Clinton was at the heart of Russiagate?
PVW said:
But you believe that "Hillary has been factually found to be at the heart of Russiagate."
How can it be possible that the Russians hacked the DNC while simultaneously be factually proven that Clinton was at the heart of Russiagate?
Because she hired Sussman and he orchestrated main parts of Russiagate which were the Steele Dossier and hiring Crowdstrike, which said, unequivocally, that Russia hacked the DNC and stole the emails (mainstream media figures call this an act of war), and also the Alpha bank "theory." She was clearly trying to hurt Trump and later to cover for her loss.
The Steele Dossier has been revealed to be garbage, the DNC hack is hardly proven (it's a remote possibility at this point), and the Alpha bank connection was a joke. Yet for at least three years, that's all we heard about on the news and anyone who tried to question this narrative was called a Putin Puppet or a Russian spy.
Waste of time when there was so much else to be noticed.
Are you trying to gaslight me? He says it's about Crowdstrike. He mentions the NSA because he used to work for the NSA and I've read other interviews/articles where he says the NSA would have been able to tell the whole deal and it's suspicious that they did not ask them to check (this is from memory -- I will have to look for reference).
BUT, in this discussion, which you are disputing, it's about Crowdstrike. The FBI did not have control of the servers because the DNC would not let them. Only Crowdstrike was allowed.
Larouch Guy: Now you have brought up that this came from Crowdstrike rather than FBI. Why would it be unlikely to come from the FBI?
Binney: they didn't have control of the DNC servers.
Larouch Guy: To your knowledge, they have never been able to examine the DNC servers, have they?
Binney: No that's right. When you don't have control of the servers, you don't have control of the evidence. That's the problem with it.