Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC

[DKW 86 7,419]

In case you didnt know...If there was a FacePalm Title on this site, I'd win it...lol

[AUDub 11,146]

On 5/20/2020 at 6:57 AM, DKW 86 said:

Really, then why bother to even consider testimony in any case? Just ignore anything that doesnt fit your narrative no matter how much evidence there is of it. 

No I'm not saying don't consider it, but it must be weighed in light of other evidence. 

Quote

Reality: Crowdstrike CEO says he cannot prove anything. Wikileaks, whose whole schtick is to out Elitist misdeeds suddenly wants to destroy their credibility and work by working with Russians, whom they also out daily??? Does that sound logical? Does it? No, of course not.

No you've got Wikileaks all wrong. They absolutely have an axe to grind and a dog in this fight. Assange himself has a very cozy relationship with the Russian government, and they've actively hidden s*** about Russia, even attacking Glenn Greenwald over his release of the Panama papers. They're also close with Assad, Assange's own father meeting with him. 

Hell, their official Twitter account is batshit insane too, going full conspiracy via whipping Soros when it's convenient, accusing the Podesta brothers of drinking blood, semen and breastmilk at a dinner for a performance artist and accusing the DNC of, get this, Satanism. And every single grievance can be traced to Hillary, apparently. 

Beyond that, when they do dump info, they're indiscriminate. A danger. They doxxed thousands of people the Saudi government would see hung, gays, "uppity" women people with AIDS, numerous journalists etc. They doxxed almost every woman in Turkey. They outed the last remaining Jews in Baghdad, putting them in harm's way.  

Quote

HRC went from strapping a mattress to her back with the now 100% Discredited "Russian Reset." No one thinks that went well. Anyone with a brain in their head ever thought it would. SAo Clinton, as usual, gets to have it both ways. "Russian Reset" was flawed plan from Step One. It was a waste of time. After it blew up in her face ans it 100% Guaranteed to do from Step One, then she is suddenly a Russian Hawk and why Putin must take her down???? Is that your reality? I think Putin wants more of this idiot in power. The person that did the most damage is now the one that is most feared??? What reality do you live in?

Does Trump owe his life to the Russians Financially? Yes!!!!! That is 100% Legit.
But this convoluted idea that Russia was scared of the person they just conned to pieces is just silly. 

One where I'm well aware of what actually went down. If you deny Putin actively aided to Trump because it was amenable to his interests, you're a fool. 

Quote

And the bottomline: HRC still outspent DJT by close to $500M. The Russians spending what $1.3M and overcoming a $500M advantage??? Do you really do math that bad? The DNC emails were only a negative because of what was in them. If they were dealing straight up with Sanders, there would be no story here at all. 

It's not about math, you loon. 

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

"Hell, their official Twitter account is batshit insane too, going full conspiracy via whipping Soros when it's convenient, accusing the Podesta brothers of drinking blood, semen and breastmilk at a dinner for a performance artist and accusing the DNC of, get this, Satanism. And every single grievance can be traced to Hillary, apparently."

Not sure what your objective is, but that sounds like a "news" source that's right up David's ally.

Are you just feeding the troll?

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Hell, their official Twitter account is batshit insane too, going full conspiracy via whipping Soros when it's convenient, accusing the Podesta brothers of drinking blood, semen and breastmilk at a dinner for a performance artist and accusing the DNC of, get this, Satanism. And every single grievance can be traced to Hillary, apparently. 

Beyond that, when they do dump info, they're indiscriminate. A danger. They doxxed thousands of people the Saudi government would see hung, gays, "uppity" women people with AIDS, numerous journalists etc. They doxxed almost every woman in Turkey. They outed the last remaining Jews in Baghdad, putting them in harm's way.  

Gonna have to call BS on all that.

"Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" is all I got off a searches on WikiLeaks Twitter or even stories on Wikileaks twitter. . 

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not sure what your objective is, but that sounds like a "news" source that's right up David's ally. Are you just feeding the troll?

At least i use real news sources...

[AUDub 11,146]

33 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Gonna have to call BS on all that.

"Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" is all I got off a searches on WikiLeaks Twitter or even stories on Wikileaks twitter. . 

Regarding the last Jews in Baghdad:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jews-in-baghdad-put-at-risk-by-wikileaks-p6bf33z0s2s

Regarding the women of Turkey:

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/wikileaks-officially-lost-moral-high-ground/

Regarding the Saudi dumps:

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57bc5de2e4b0b51733a5c2e8?section=&test_ad=spot_test_mw_life

They're indiscriminate dumpers of sensitive information. That's dangerous. Even Greenwald has criticized them on this. 

And they know how to sanitize stuff that makes them look stupid

Podesta and DNC Satanist stuff:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/

Hell, some of the tweets are still up. Soros:

 

Blaming Clinton when AP had the temerity to call them on their bull**** on the Saudi Cables.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

A lot of that was more opinion than absolute fact and since WIKILeaks has been leaderless for years, it is not surprising to find inconsistency. End of the day not much changed. Wikileaks did some damage to its reputation, no doubt, but we NEED them to expose people taking bribes and money out in the open.

[AUDub 11,146]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

A lot of that was more opinion than absolute fact...

Nah the indiscriminate dumping of sensitive info and the batshit insanity of their online presence is very much a well-documented fact.

Quote

and since WIKILeaks has been leaderless for years, it is not surprising to find inconsistency.

Assange is part of the problem, a big part. There's nothing inconsistent about it. He's dabbled in antisemitism (the Jews are behind this!) sexism and misogyny. 

And his hatred of Hillary Clinton is well documented. 

Quote

End of the day not much changed. Wikileaks did some damage to its reputation, no doubt, but we NEED them to expose people taking bribes and money out in the open.

Wikileaks has an ideological bent and exercises control over what they release and when. Some things need to see the light of day, no doubt, but they actively weaponize it in light of their ideology, which is actually quite dangerous.

And what they do release, they generally do it without concern for people that may be in harm's way as a result. Some sensitive information is sensitive for a reason. 

These people aren't the crusaders you're looking for. They are not an organization of neutral transparency. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

12 hours ago, AUDub said:

Nah the indiscriminate dumping of sensitive info and the batshit insanity of their online presence is very much a well-documented fact.

But the dumping of the Democrats Emails wasnt sensitive. It was in fact good for the party, good for America, it was a total WIN-WIN for all. It had to happen and I bet 20 years from now will be seen as one of the best most changing, most revealing, most cathartic things to ever happen in American Politics. 

Assange is part of the problem, a big part. There's nothing inconsistent about it. He's dabbled in antisemitism (the Jews are behind this!) sexism and misogyny. 

You may have a point here. But that still you are once again, as always, wanting to shoot the messenger and not the message. Anything to damage the storyline. Assange could be all that. But dumping the DNC Emails was by ALL ACCOUNTS, a great positive thing for the Nation. 

And his hatred of Hillary Clinton is well documented. 

Really? I know this will seem really strange to those living inside the TPM Bubble, but...MOST of the free world distrusts, dislikes, hell even hates HRC too. The lies, the corruption, blind money grabbing..What is there to love? The reason she lost was that she comes with more baggage than cruise ship. From her earliest days in politics, From Travelgate (turning the FBI on to manufacturing a BS reason to oust a long time, well-loved member of the WH Travel Dept.), to Hillary-Care written behind closed doors, to the speeches given to Goldman-Sachs that she still refuses to release, to the $$$ Grabs at the Clinton Foundation, the Deplorable American Middle-Class, from 100% Predictable Russian reset blowing up in her face to somehow trying toclaim that Putin has it in for her. From dumping 30,000 emails off of a server, to stabbing every woman in the back that accused WJC. and on and on and on and on, from outspending DJT by $500M and still losing to the worst, most beatable candidate ever to run for President. People all over the damn world dislike HRC. If Assange dislikes or hates her, he is in probably overwhelmingly good standing with good people that probably have the higher numbers than those that like her.

Wikileaks has an ideological bent and exercises control over what they release and when. Some things need to see the light of day, no doubt, but they actively weaponize it in light of their ideology, which is actually quite dangerous.

Wow, you mean like 95% of the MSM? Stranger is that what they do, that you like, is 100% okay, but if you disagree with it is 100% to be discredited. THIS IS WHERE WE BREAK.

I can and do talk about the good and bad of BOTH sides of the aisle. You and 2-3 others here can only see this in absolutes. DNC=Perfect. Not DNC=EVIL. IOW Talking Point Thinkers, or non-Thinkers in reality. Whatever is the Talking Point of the day is to be believed with the blind conviction of a zealot. Never question anything being said, just argue for or defend it to the death..NO MATTER HOW HIGH ON THE GUANO METER it goes. Want proof that this is really about Zealotry? Just open your eyes. The RNC and the DNC are both run by old, rich, white guys that are known womanizers and are dinosaurs from a dark age when all that was considered to be a good thing.  They could not any more NOT represent the America I know and love if they tried. My God. Biden has a 40 year history of Supporting Segregationists, Big Banking, the Military-Industrialists, the For-Profit-Prison Industry, Racist Prison Outcomes, Trampling on Anita Hill,and other women etc. DJT is DJT, business fraud and America's Epitome of Narcissistic Blowhard. They both openly lied about their education, their intelligence, and treatment of women. Hell biden and Trump are living memes of sexist behavior. 

And what they do release, they generally do it without concern for people that may be in harm's way as a result. Some sensitive information is sensitive for a reason. 

100% Agree with you here. There is no excuse for some of those releases. I can only hope that they were mistakes, although you have persuaded me that they probably werent, sadly.

These people aren't the crusaders you're looking for. They are not an organization of neutral transparency. 

And again...Who is these days? Surely not the RNC nor the DNC. Like my MSNBC Buddy says: They are just the Right and Left wing of the Party of Money.

Wow. all that guano here on the page. Just wow...

You know we both want what is good for America, at least I hope you want that. But Brother, what the DNC emails showed was eye-opening. Those emails showed that the DNC was fully up top their eyeballs screwing over the Bernie side and His supporters. They dont have a right to manage the outcomes for THEIR, AND ONLY THEIR BENEFIT.  Democracy is messy, but it beats Authoritarianism. DWS et al, betrayed the Democrat Voters. They were fully in the tank for HRC.

If HRC was so damn popular, why couldnt she defeat BS on her own? Why did the DNC have to step in? Why did HRC HAVE TO HAVE THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE DEBATES? Why was Brazile sending them to the DNC and on to HRC? 

[AUDub 11,146]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

But the dumping of the Democrats Emails wasnt sensitive. It was in fact good for the party, good for America, it was a total WIN-WIN for all. It had to happen and I bet 20 years from now will be seen as one of the best most changing, most revealing, most cathartic things to ever happen in American Politics. 

Some of it was, though, as there is unredacted SSNs and credit card information belonging to perfectly innocent people contained in those dumps.

That's a big problem, not giving a s*** about collateral.

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

You may have a point here. But that still you are once again, as always, wanting to shoot the messenger and not the message. Anything to damage the storyline. Assange could be all that. But dumping the DNC Emails was by ALL ACCOUNTS, a great positive thing for the Nation.

You're the one that appealed to motive in an effort to prop up their credibility.

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Really? I know this will seem really strange to those living inside the TPM Bubble, but...MOST of the free world distrusts, dislikes, hell even hates HRC too. The lies, the corruption, blind money grabbing..What is there to love? The reason she lost was that she comes with more baggage than cruise ship. From her earliest days in politics, From Travelgate (turning the FBI on to manufacturing a BS reason to oust a long time, well-loved member of the WH Travel Dept.), to Hillary-Care written behind closed doors, to the speeches given to Goldman-Sachs that she still refuses to release, to the $$$ Grabs at the Clinton Foundation, the Deplorable American Middle-Class, from 100% Predictable Russian reset blowing up in her face to somehow trying toclaim that Putin has it in for her. From dumping 30,000 emails off of a server, to stabbing every woman in the back that accused WJC. and on and on and on and on, from outspending DJT by $500M and still losing to the worst, most beatable candidate ever to run for President. People all over the damn world dislike HRC. If Assange dislikes or hates her, he is in probably overwhelmingly good standing with good people that probably have the higher numbers than those that like her.

I'm not saying he doesn't have his reasons, but if you're going to cast yourself as a non-partisan platform for whistle-blowers, then behaving like an opposition research firm undermines that.

And it borders on the irrational. They went all in on the "Hillary has Parkinsons/MS/SuperAIDS" train floated in fringe online circles like the *chans and r/The_Donald, among others. 

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Wow, you mean like 95% of the MSM? Stranger is that what they do, that you like, is 100% okay, but if you disagree with it is 100% to be discredited. THIS IS WHERE WE BREAK.

Not saying they don't. Timing stories when it will reach more people and make the biggest impact is a thing news orgs do all the time. There's a line, though, where you go from reporting the facts to actively manipulating perception and interfering with the natural progression of events. 

Quote

I can and do talk about the good and bad of BOTH sides of the aisle. You and 2-3 others here can only see this in absolutes. DNC=Perfect. Not DNC=EVIL. IOW Talking Point Thinkers, or non-Thinkers in reality. Whatever is the Talking Point of the day is to be believed with the blind conviction of a zealot. Never question anything being said, just argue for or defend it to the death..NO MATTER HOW HIGH ON THE GUANO METER it goes. Want proof that this is really about Zealotry? Just open your eyes. The RNC and the DNC are both run by old, rich, white guys that are known womanizers and are dinosaurs from a dark age when all that was considered to be a good thing.  They could not any more NOT represent the America I know and love if they tried. My God. Biden has a 40 year history of Supporting Segregationists, Big Banking, the Military-Industrialists, the For-Profit-Prison Industry, Racist Prison Outcomes, Trampling on Anita Hill,and other women etc. DJT is DJT, business fraud and America's Epitome of Narcissistic Blowhard. They both openly lied about their education, their intelligence, and treatment of women. Hell biden and Trump are living memes of sexist behavior. 

Holy strawmam, batman.

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

100% Agree with you here. There is no excuse for some of those releases. I can only hope that they were mistakes, although you have persuaded me that they probably werent, sadly.

Assange is pretty shameless about it, he's said as much, and it sucks.

As much as I detest Greenwald, his criticism of Wikileaks on this is 100% on point. And as much as I dislike him and the editorial bent of his site, the Intercept, I think that model is much closer to the ideal than Wikileaks. Greenwald is prone to bull**** and can be a bit fast and loose with the facts in his reporting, but he is, at heart, a civil liberties guy and would carefully redact info that could actively harm innocents rather than lazily and indiscriminately dumping it online. 

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

And again...Who is these days? Surely not the RNC nor the DNC. Like my MSNBC Buddy says: They are just the Right and Left wing of the Party of Money.

There's a spectrum. I don't have to like either of them to recognize that one of the two is far more amenable to my interests.

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Wow. all that guano here on the page. Just wow...

You know we both want what is good for America, at least I hope you want that. But Brother, what the DNC emails showed was eye-opening. Those emails showed that the DNC was fully up top their eyeballs screwing over the Bernie side and His supporters. They dont have a right to manage the outcomes for THEIR, AND ONLY THEIR BENEFIT.  Democracy is messy, but it beats Authoritarianism. DWS et al, betrayed the Democrat Voters. They were fully in the tank for HRC.

If HRC was so damn popular, why couldnt she defeat BS on her own? Why did the DNC have to step in? Why did HRC HAVE TO HAVE THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE DEBATES? Why was Brazile sending them to the DNC and on to HRC? 

Look, man, I'm well aware the DNC was unfair to Bernie and to their constituents. Hillary nomination was probably a foregone conclusion, but to say they played dirty and made a mockery of their bylaws on remaining neutral is 100% true. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

This thing about Circumstantial Evidence, do you REALLY mean all that or are you just trolling me and the board here?

I mean, do you agree with the evidence and the testimony that Crowdstrike could not prove any of this or are you really going to say that circumstantial evidence is okay to judge others by? You see i dont buy it. I may think OJ is guilty, but at the end of the day, I have to say that in a court of law he wasnt found guilty, although everyone I know alive back then thought he was. 

Do i THINK he is guilty, OH HELL YES. Do I know he was guilty? Well I wasnt in the courtroom etc etc etc.

[AUDub 11,146]

10 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

This thing about Circumstantial Evidence, do you REALLY mean all that or are you just trolling me and the board here?

Not at all. It's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow weaker or less meaningful than direct evidence. 

And it's cumulative,  like the example a few pages ago.

It's very possible for cases based solely upon circumstancial evidence to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and is in fact very common. 

Quote

I mean, do you agree with the evidence and the testimony that Crowdstrike could not prove any of this or are you really going to say that circumstantial evidence is okay to judge others by? You see i dont buy it. I may think OJ is guilty, but at the end of the day, I have to say that in a court of law he wasnt found guilty, although everyone I know alive back then thought he was. 

Do i THINK he is guilty, OH HELL YES. Do I know he was guilty? Well I wasnt in the courtroom etc etc etc.

OJ was a special case. There's little doubt he did it, but he had a talented defense team that spun up a far-fetched conspiracy theory, a judge that didn't really play it even-handedly and a jury that, after the fact, had people in it that effectively nullified a solid case in spite of being certain of his guilt to "get back at the LAPD" (admitted in interviews after the fact). One of them was a known Black Panther that the prosecution inexplicably didn't strike in voir dire, and gave Simpson a raised fist salute on his way out of the courtroom upon his acquittal. Remember that this was on the heels of several bad acquittals that favored the LAPD, including Rodney King.

Plus the defense wasn't entirely wrong about how bad the LAPD was at that time. They caught one of them lying under oath about his prior use of the n-word, and effectively trapped another on a 5th amendment defense. His counsel, Cochran in particular, was very, very, good. 

But there are good examples of high-profile cases where convictions were obtained heavily on the basis of circumstancial evidence. McVeigh is probably the highest profile example. Scott Peterson is another.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Not at all. It's a common misconception that circumstantial evidence is somehow weaker or less meaningful than direct evidence. 

And it's cumulative,  like the example a few pages ago.

It's very possible for cases based solely upon circumstancial evidence to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and is in fact very common. 

So, of course then, you do believe that Tara Reade, who by far has the Circumstantial Evidence gold Standard. She has contemporaneous witnesses, etc that CBF never had. Reade's mountain of Circumstantial Evidence must just be obviously overwhelming for you, right?

[AUDub 11,146]

25 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

So, of course then, you do believe that Tara Reade, who by far has the Circumstantial Evidence gold Standard. She has contemporaneous witnesses, etc that CBF never had. Reade's mountain of Circumstantial Evidence must just be obviously overwhelming for you, right?

Not when I weigh it, no. Not all evidence is created equal.

Hell, witnesses aren't the be all end all, either. Recall the Eva Murry accusation discussed earlier in this thread? Half a dozen people came forward corroborating her accusation, but Biden had documentary evidence that he wasn't at the event in question. When she altered the date, he wasn't present at that time either and could prove it. Put simply, people lie. A lot.

And the witnesses in the Reade case aren't ironclad either. Her mom may have called into Larry King, but she didn't mention assault. Her brother's story has changed in the same manner Ms. Reade's has. Ms. LaCasse didn't recall the story until reminded of it. In short, there's little consistency to be found here. And now, given Ms. Reade's well-known and reported on history as a grifter and the protean nature of her story in general, it's hard to take anything she told anyone seriously. Credibility matters, and CBF had far more credibility than her. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Not when I weigh it, no. Not all evidence is created equal.

Hell, witnesses aren't the be all end all, either. Recall the Eva Murry accusation discussed earlier in this thread? Half a dozen people came forward corroborating her accusation, but Biden had documentary evidence that he wasn't at the event in question. When she altered the date, he wasn't present at that time either and could prove it. Put simply, people lie. A lot.

And the witnesses in the Reade case aren't ironclad either. Her mom may have called into Larry King, but she didn't mention assault. Her brother's story has changed in the same manner Ms. Reade's has. Ms. LaCasse didn't recall the story until reminded of it. In short, there's little consistency to be found here. And now, given Ms. Reade's well-known and reported on history as a grifter and the protean nature of her story in general, it's hard to take anything she told anyone seriously. Credibility matters, and CBF had far more credibility than her. 

Dude, when I troll you and expose your "obvious to anyone that reads here" hypocrisy, you are supposed to make it at least hard.

IOW, You mean '"I believe CE when and only when it suits my needs."

Dude, you are naked in Times Square now..

"I believe cases when there is some CE, but not cases where there is overwhelming CE." BS....

[DKW 86 7,419]

Listen to the guy that wrote the VIPS software. 

[AUDub 11,146]

40 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Dude, when I troll you and expose your "obvious to anyone that reads here" hypocrisy, you are supposed to make it at least hard.

IOW, You mean '"I believe CE when and only when it suits my needs."

No, I'll weigh it, which I have, before rendering a judgment. 

40 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Dude, you are naked in Times Square now..

"I believe cases when there is some CE, but not cases where there is overwhelming CE." BS....

You assert there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in Reade's claim?

[AUDub 11,146]

24 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

This has already been debunked. 

[AUDub 11,146]

25 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Listen to the guy that wrote the VIPS software. 

VIPS isn't software, it's a group of former security analysts. 

And, again, Binney's take was quite controversial even within VIPS. Their memo was released over the objection of several VIPS members, and is flawed. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

38 minutes ago, AUDub said:

No, I'll weigh it, which I have, before rendering a judgment. 

You assert there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in Reade's claim?

Compared to CBF, she indeed has overwhelming evidence hands down. CBF has no contemporaneous witnesses. No places. No sworn charges. No witness backed her up nor even said they had even visited the homes. Nothing. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

54 minutes ago, AUDub said:

VIPS isn't software, it's a group of former security analysts. 

And, again, Binney's take was quite controversial even within VIPS. Their memo was released over the objection of several VIPS members, and is flawed. 

No, VIPS wrote the software that is tracking packets etc. They know that the have ZERO EVIDENCE of the packets ever having been sent. They hard tested the speed from US to Europe going to multiple states and all failed. ALL FAILED, They got nowhere close to Russia and they had failed miserably on the defacto speed of the transfer.

Checkmate.

[DKW 86 7,419]

55 minutes ago, AUDub said:

VIPS isn't software, it's a group of former security analysts. 

And, again, Binney's take was quite controversial even within VIPS. Their memo was released over the objection of several VIPS members, and is flawed. 

Binney and his group hands on tested the tramsmission speed. There is no way you can come close to the stated speed  based on their factual-actual hands on testing.

[DKW 86 7,419]

44 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This has already been debunked. 

No, It has been crticized, it has not been debunked at all, AGAIN, Theory does not trump factual-actual testing. 

[AUDub 11,146]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Compared to CBF, she indeed has overwhelming evidence hands down.

lol no

Quote

CBF has no contemporaneous witnesses.

Ms. Reade doesnt really have reliable witnesses. Her brother supports her story, sure, but his story changed too. He initially told the press that the first he had hears of an allegation of assualt came this spring.

Mom has passed away, and the one record we have of her doesn't mention sexual assault in any way.

The third contemporaneous witness is anonymous and Ms. Reade told her something about a negative experience working in Biden’s office, but not about any alleged rape. The friend says she didn’t ‘commit to memory’ being told about the rape. Ms. Reade's prior, less salacious allegations also had anonymous witness corroboration. Make of that what you will. 

Quote

No places.

This is funny to me, considering Ed Whelan went to Zillow to look at house layouts and accused some random middle school teacher in Georgia of being Mrs. Ford's actual attacker.

We should go into this one further. What a shitshow the Kavanaugh hearing was. 

Quote

No sworn charges.

Ms. Reade doesn't have that either.

Mrs. Ford did testify in front of the judiciary committee under oath.

Speaking of under oath, looks like Ms. Reade has demonstrably lied under oath about her work experience and education. Probably why her lawyer ducked out. He didn't sign up to defend her from multiple perjury charges.

Quote

No witness backed her up nor even said they had even visited the homes.

Mrs. Keyser said at the time that she believed Mrs. Ford. Mr. Smyth and Mr. Judge didn't want to testify under oath, and Judge was allegedly in the room.

Quote

Nothing. 

Certainly not enough to convict Judge Kavanaugh of a crime, no.

[AUDub 11,146]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Binney and his group hands on tested the tramsmission speed. There is no way you can come close to the stated speed  based on their factual-actual hands on testing.

But VIPS ain't software, Mr. Goalpost Mover. 

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

No, It has been crticized, it has not been debunked at all, AGAIN, Theory does not trump factual-actual testing. 

You know who might be a good source on this? William Binney

Quote

A month after visiting CIA headquarters, Binney came to Britain. After re-examining the data in Guccifer 2.0 files thoroughly with the author of this article, Binney changed his mind. He said there was “no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. The Guccifer 2.0 files analysed by Leonard’s g-2.space were “manipulated”, he said, and a “fabrication”.

 

[AUDub 11,146]

Question for you, David. Do you believe Seth Rich stole the DNC documents?