A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon

[Lord Buckley]

This is a good overview of Comey's testimony and I agree, he comes across as weak as piss, a very sneaky leaker of classified information who should be held to account to the full extent that the law allows and a disgruntled ex-employee with chips on both shoulders who you just couldn't trust:



I do hope that all those stay behind Gladio agents aligned to him and the Clintons who were planning on holding Trump to account are covering their arses!

 

[Fwiffo]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/tillerson-qatar-blockade-1.4153958

"U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday urged Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to ease their blockade against Qatar, saying it was causing unintended humanitarian consequences and affecting the U.S.-led fight against ISIS.
...
Trump did not call for an easing of the blockade, despite the large U.S. military presence in Qatar.

It was unclear if he was aware of the comments Tillerson had made.

Earlier this week, Trump appeared to tie the blockade to the success of his trip in May to Saudi Arabia and welcomed it as positive news in a series of tweets."

Let's welcome back the circus! I hope someone circled in Spicer before he faces the press again.

 

[InstaHate]

I feel that Spicer probably abuses prescription medication and is clinically depressed. If Sarto were here, I'm sure he could do anal lice and confirm.

 

[Journeyman]

This is a good overview of Comey's testimony and I agree, he comes across as weak as piss, a very sneaky leaker of classified information who should be held to account to the full extent that the law allows and a disgruntled ex-employee with chips on both shoulders who you just couldn't trust..

You must have watched different testimony from the footage that I watched...

 

[Grand Potentate]

You must have watched different testimony from the footage that I watched...

And what was your impression of it?

 

[Pauly Chase]

I wonder if Lynch, Clinton, HusseinO will be brought up to testify or charged.

 

[Thruth]

And what was your impression of it?

Trump is a douchebag but nothing illegal

Comey is a douchebag but that made him a solid swivel servant in justice & intelligence work. Plus he is smart enough to not trust Trump but is a vindictive little cunt.

The Clintons are douchebags.

Loretta Lynch is a douchebag

Dems are douchebags

Rep are douchebags

CNN & Fox are douchebags

But Stefan Molyneux is the biggest douchebag of them all

How's that?

 

[Grand Potentate]

But Stefan Molyneux is the biggest douchebag of them all

don't tell Scherensammler

 

[Lord Buckley]

You know who's worse than that Molyneux, the indefatigable Styx:



He wasn't really sure what was going on:

 

[Scherensammler]

But Stefan Molyneux is the biggest douchebag of them all

don't tell Scherensammler

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I kind of have to agree with Thruth . Every man over 50 wearing a dark crew neck sweater is a douchebag. He is also in need of some drama lessons. Maybe JT of C could help him out?

 

[Arnathor]

Grand Potentate , you don't want Jihadi Justin teaching anyone anything besides how to do your hair. Please don't mention the national embarrassment.

 

[Thruth]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I kind of have to agree with Thruth . Every man over 50 wearing a dark crew neck sweater is a douchebag. He is also in need of some drama lessons. Maybe JT of C could help him out?

 

[Monkeyface]

This is a good overview of Comey's testimony and I agree, he comes across as weak as piss, a very sneaky leaker of classified information who should be held to account to the full extent that the law allows and a disgruntled ex-employee with chips on both shoulders who you just couldn't trust:



I do hope that all those stay behind Gladio agents aligned to him and the Clintons who were planning on holding Trump to account are covering their arses!

Hold up, that's fake news. the memos weren't classified. He wrote them specifically so they wouldn't be classified. This was mentioned several times during questioning. Trump threatened with tapes so he released his memos.

Overall, Comey did surprisingly well in the testimony. The republicans didn't, especially McCain. Lots of focusing on the word hope, like it matters. If your boss clears the room and tells you he sure hopes you do something, he means you better fucking do it. It's universally agreed upon, and has been forever. Comey was smart to quote the meddlesome priest bit.

 

[InstaHate]

A solid 3/4 of conservative op-eds I read on the topic paint their left-wing equivalents as arguing that Trump colluded with Russia, when about 4/5s of the liberal op-eds seem to be arguing that Russia successfully interferes in the election and that while the Trump team probably had nothing to do with it, they are acting suspicious, and while their suspicious actions are probably born of stupidity, we should probably investigate them because a) just in case and b) fuck that Trump guy

With two exceptions...one posts shit about being vegan and the other is a gay yoga instructor in Hawaii...that's how all of my liberal friends feel.

I suspect the Mueller investigation will conclude something along those lines. Russia succeeded in manipulating the outcome. Trump benefited but had nothing to do with it.

 

[Monkeyface]

A solid 3/4 of conservative op-eds I read on the topic paint their left-wing equivalents as arguing that Trump colluded with Russia, when about 4/5s of the liberal op-eds seem to be arguing that Russia successfully interferes in the election and that while the Trump team probably had nothing to do with it, they are acting suspicious, and while their suspicious actions are probably born of stupidity, we should probably investigate them because a) just in case and b) fuck that Trump guy

With two exceptions...one posts shit about being vegan and the other is a gay yoga instructor in Hawaii...that's how all of my liberal friends feel.

I suspect the Mueller investigation will conclude something along those lines. Russia succeeded in manipulating the outcome. Trump benefited but had nothing to do with it.

Flynn and Manafort probably had something to do with it though. Why did Sessions and Kushner meet with the Russians and then lie about it? All the hiding makes them look super suspicious.

 

[InstaHate]

10 to 1 it's ineptitude and poor decision making.

But because there is that chance, we gotta investigate.

 

[Monkeyface]

10 to 1 it's ineptitude and poor decision making.

But because there is that chance, we gotta investigate.

Ineptitude and poor decision making isn't as bad as treason, but it's still pretty damning. Grounds for dismissal if they don't hand in their resignation.

 

[Jan Libourel]

^I am not sure how dealings of any sort with the Russians constitute "treason," at least as defined by the United States Constitution. Last I heard we were not at war with Russia, so how can they, legally anyway, be classed as "enemies"?

 

[Grand Potentate]

^I am not sure how dealings of any sort with the Russians constitute "treason," at least as defined by the United States Constitution. Last I heard we were not at war with Russia, so how can they, legally anyway, be classed as "enemies"?

our neoliberal power brokers have an intrinsic fear of the russkies ever since the red scares of the 50's. they're lurking around every corner and even your neighbor could be a double agent.

 

[Monkeyface]

^I am not sure how dealings of any sort with the Russians constitute "treason," at least as defined by the United States Constitution. Last I heard we were not at war with Russia, so how can they, legally anyway, be classed as "enemies"?

So, let's say Manafort or Flynn received payment from the Russians to interfere in the elections and drop the sanctions? Would be treason, no? As long as you define Russia as an enemy or rogue state, which seems to be pretty common in contemporary US politics.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

[Grand Potentate]

So, let's say Manafort or Flynn received payment from the Russians to interfere in the elections and drop the sanctions? Would be treason, no? As long as you define Russia as an enemy or rogue state, which seems to be pretty common in contemporary US politics.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

did they? is russia an enemy? they're not attacking us.

 

[Monkeyface]

did they? is russia an enemy? they're not attacking us.

If you believe Comey, they cyber attacked one of your political parties and directly interfered in your elections. Looks like an attack to me.

 

[Grand Potentate]

If you believe Comey, they cyber attacked one of your political parties and directly interfered in your elections. Looks like an attack to me.

actually that's not what he said

 

[Monkeyface]

actually that's not what he said

Actually, that's exactly what was said:

19:13 — BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?

COMEY: None.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?

COMEY: No.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that officials of the Russian government were fully aware of these activities?

COMEY: No doubt.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Actually, that's exactly what was said:

19:13 — BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?

COMEY: None.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?

COMEY: No.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that officials of the Russian government were fully aware of these activities?

COMEY: No doubt.

Intrusion is not tampering in the election

 

[InstaHate]

Regardless of whether it is legally treason, I think we can recognize working with a foreign power to undermine the process at the core of our democracy is a serious crime. If they were working with Canada, France, the Bahamas, whatever...thats a pretty big problem. It just happens to be Russia, which makes it worse, but it ultimately isn't the crux of the issue.

A key strategy in war has long been the destruction of infrastructure, and as more and more of our infrastructure is digital, we may need to begin to rethink what constitutes hostile action (though let's not get ahead of ourselves labeling all hostile action an act or war). doghouse

Intrusion is not tampering in the election

It depends on what is done with the results of the intrusion. In this case, it was used to tamper. A dozen things happened which prevented HRC from winning, the majority of them revolve around her being a terrible candidate. Had any one factor been absent, it would have gone the other way. Russia was a single factor.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Regardless of whether it is legally treason, I think we can recognize working with a foreign power to undermine the process at the core of our democracy is a serious crime. If they were working with Canada, France, the Bahamas, whatever...thats a pretty big problem. It just happens to be Russia, which makes it worse, but it ultimately isn't the crux of the issue.

A key strategy in war has long been the destruction of infrastructure, and as more and more of our infrastructure is digital, we may need to begin to rethink what constitutes hostile action (though let's not get ahead of ourselves labeling all hostile action an act or war). doghouse



It depends on what is done with the results of the intrusion. In this case, it was used to tamper. A dozen things happened which prevented HRC from winning, the majority of them revolve around her being a terrible candidate. Had any one factor been absent, it would have gone the other way. Russia was a single factor.

How was it used to tamper?

 

[doghouse]

did they? is russia an enemy? they're not attacking us.

Are you high?

.

A key strategy in war has long been the destruction of infrastructure, and as more and more of our infrastructure is digital, we may need to begin to rethink what constitutes hostile action (though let's not get ahead of ourselves labeling all hostile action an act or war). doghouse

We've done quite a bit to protect infrastructure, probably more than the average citizen knows. Unfortunately, it has been geared more to physical assets to this point, and not so much information management. I'm actually reasonably optimistic on our ability to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[InstaHate]

They gained information which hurt one of the candidates. They released that information. That information influenced votes which then influenced the election. Had Russia not been involved in the election, there would have been a different outcome (as there would have been if HRC was a better candidate).

I don't know if you are restricting the use of "tamper with the election" to interference with the voting process itself, though if you are, I think that is a very narrow view of the election process and the democratic process. During an election, I'd argue that everything relevant to the candidates and the votes those candidates receive is part of the process. That includes debates, campaigning, endorsement, etc. If Americans were behind it the hacks and the release of information, that's much less of an issue...they are a part of our democratic process after all. But a foreign power with a bone to pick with one candidate, a preference for another, and every indication of wanting a chaotic America (and clearly enjoying it now) is behind it, it's a bigger issue.

OED defines tamper as: Interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations.

I'd say Russia altered the outcome, and as an entity outside the democratic process (as opposed to voters, candidates, fellow politicians, and even Brietbart and MSNBC and the like), they are certainly unauthorized.

 

[InstaHate]

We've done quite a bit to protect infrastructure, probably more than the average citizen knows. Unfortunately, it has been geared more to physical assets to this point, and not so much information management. I'm actually reasonably optimistic on our ability to deal with this sort of thing.

My institution recently hosted some sort of weeklong development and training workshop for the Secret Service. It was hosted by our cyber security department and I assume all those attending were part of the cyber security department of the SS. I know a number of the professors have security clearance, and several of the PhD students in the department either received it or retained it in the case of two who are ex AF intelligence officers.

 

[Grand Potentate]

maybe i missed it but where has it been proven that russia gave the info to wikileaks? the russian state not just a rando with a russian ip address.

also,

I don't know if you are restricting the use of "tamper with the election" to interference with the voting process itself, though if you are, I think that is a very narrow view of the election process and the democratic process. During an election, I'd argue that everything relevant to the candidates and the votes those candidates receive is part of the process. That includes debates, campaigning, endorsement, etc. If Americans were behind it the hacks and the release of information, that's much less of an issue...they are a part of our democratic process after all. But a foreign power with a bone to pick with one candidate, a preference for another, and every indication of wanting a chaotic America (and clearly enjoying it now) is behind it, it's a bigger issue.

while i'm with you on the generalities here i differ in that i don't think that a) russia orchestrated some master plan to damage hillary, b) has been proven to have either set all of this in motion or benefited from it in any significant way, or c) this idea of a "chaotic america" is completely ridiculous, especially if you think this country would be going in any other direction than straight into the shitter if Hillary were in charge vs. straight into the shitter with Trump in charge.

Had Russia not been involved in the election, there would have been a different outcome

i just don't see how that could possibly be true given what we know about how the vote shook out.

I'm actually reasonably optimistic on our ability to deal with this sort of thing.

now who's high?

 

[InstaHate]

You asked about Comey's testimony, and it is clear Comey thinks that way.

I think Russia had a hand in things, but if Mueller concludes otherwise, I'll accept that.

As far as it making a difference, 5 states were decided by less than 1.5% and two less than 0.5%. Given the sustained coverage the DNC email leak generated, as well as substantial social media campaign, IF Russia is responsible for both, the Kremlin likely flipped a few of those states in Don's favor. Of course, if Russia isn't behind it, then *shrug*

It was a shitty crop of candidates. Kasich would probably have been my choice.

There are different types of going to shit and different kinds of chaos. I'd've preferred the going to shit that would have accompanied HRC to what is accompanying DJT. HRC would have maintained the international status quo, and I do think she'd be doing a more competent job than Donnie. Still, I strongly dislike HRC (and dislike her more now than I did in November), would have preferred Kasich, and voted for Johnson.

 

[Grand Potentate]

You asked about Comey's testimony, and it is clear Comey thinks that way.

this is the key. whether or not this is the complete picture is a different story. i am also not completely convinced that comey knows his asshole from his elbow when it comes to the cyber.

I think Russia had a hand in things, but if Mueller concludes otherwise, I'll accept that.

As far as it making a difference, 5 states were decided by less than 1.5% and two less than 0.5%. Given the sustained coverage the DNC email leak generated, as well as substantial social media campaign, IF Russia is responsible for both, the Kremlin likely flipped a few of those states in Don's favor. Of course, if Russia isn't behind it, then *shrug*

It was a shitty crop of candidates. Kasich would probably have been my choice.

There are different types of going to shit and different kinds of chaos. I'd've preferred the going to shit that would have accompanied HRC to what is accompanying DJT. HRC would have maintained the international status quo, and I do think she'd be doing a more competent job than Donnie. Still, I strongly dislike HRC (and dislike her more now than I did in November), would have preferred Kasich, and voted for Johnson.

fair enough

 

[Monkeyface]

Intrusion is not tampering in the election

Dude, can you not read? I said in my post Russia interfered in the elections. Comey says he has no doubt Russia interfered in the elections. It's exactly the same thing.

Comeh also said Russia was responsible for the hacks and the leaks. But of course you have more information and know more than the director of the FBI.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Dude, can you not read? I said in my post Russia interfered in the elections. Comey says he has no doubt Russia interfered in the elections. It's exactly the same thing.

no, it absolutely isn't, because we have zero evidence tying the two things together.

Comeh also said Russia was responsible for the hacks and the leaks. But of course you have more information and know more than the director of the FBI.

comey says a lot of things. it doesn't make any of them true.

 

[Scherensammler]

Did any of the committee members ask him about having proof?

 

[Monkeyface]

Did any of the committee members ask him about having proof?

Yeah, they discussed in the closed session because it's an ongoing investigation.

 

[Monkeyface]

no, it absolutely isn't, because we have zero evidence tying the two things together.


comey says a lot of things. it doesn't make any of them true.

What? I said interfere, Comey said interfere. It's literally the same word! Are you arguing against the dictionary now? I never said anything about tamper or whatnot. Interfere = interfere. I don't know what you're smoking, but I'll have some.

 

[Monkeyface]

Oh trump, what did you do this time?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40243184

 

[Lord Buckley]

Did any of the committee members ask him about having proof?

He has no "dubties" as my wife likes to say mockingly. He has no doubt, but offers no evidence. Hardly convincing.

There should be an indicator of compromise e.g. a phishing email, or other digital artefact. In one case we know that Podesta hit the link in a spear phishing email. But the Hillary stuff, strikes me as a classic insider leak. Someone who might know is already dead.

As regards the states where Hillary's defeat was decided by small percentages and we have "no doubt" that Russia was behind this, then there must be bonafide evidence of this. How did they do this: man in the middle application that changed votes cast, botnets casting votes, some exfiltration malarkey? Or are we saying that Russia manipulated social media with propaganda either by remote users pretending to be US citizens or bots posting anti-Hillary posts?

Big difference in the two: one is genuinly an advanced persistent and dangerous cyber intelligence threat to the democratic order, a clear hostile act. We are told that the IP addresses concerned are in Russia, but such a hostile attack would warrant serious arse covering with the use of onion routers in the dark web. You wouldn't go to all that trouble for it to be easily traced back to you. The other possibility that through established propaganda techniques they brought Hillary down, well hard to prove and is yet more sour grapes I am afraid: it may, or may not have worked. You can't blame Hillary's genuine defeat on bad publicity and that the basket case of deplorables were all turned by them pesky Russkies again.

All in all, the record keeps playing stuck in that same groove: it wasn't Hillary's fault that she failed. Yes it was, put up, or shut up.