tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post3700569017403651585..comments2024-03-28T05:37:00.890-04:00Comments on the daily howler: A need to return to the greatest of books!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-39301968176788688492022-06-06T22:27:32.312-04:002022-06-06T22:27:32.312-04:00I think Bob's being a bit sarcastic because th...I think Bob's being a bit sarcastic because the Sandburg book is notoriously unreliable in the hopeless narrative dept.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-55768098434142815742022-06-06T20:30:22.769-04:002022-06-06T20:30:22.769-04:00The original commenter has it right, Somerby and h...The original commenter has it right, Somerby and his fanboy are servile to what they consider superior beings. This is common to all right wingers, and it is why they do not like progress.<br /><br />The ability to hit a ball or throw a ball in a basket has no value for me, it is very weird why it would for anybody. Free will does not exist; society is not served by unduly creating hierarchies based on arbitrary traits in which no one had a sentient role.<br /><br />Somerby and his fanboy spend all their days shitting on people who want to advance society, diminish oppression, make life more enjoyable, meanwhile they ogle and idolize random and arbitrary traits like servile cucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45006505847636696772022-06-06T17:48:14.132-04:002022-06-06T17:48:14.132-04:00What kind of heinous childhood trauma would cause ...What kind of heinous childhood trauma would cause someone to believe a word Bill Barr says?<br />These people are obviously suffering from PTSD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-89146073809893910472022-06-06T17:01:25.628-04:002022-06-06T17:01:25.628-04:00As I said, not criticizing them but not mythologiz...As I said, not criticizing them but not mythologizing them either. I don’t worship athletes. Lists like that are ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26086044606131939982022-06-06T17:00:29.796-04:002022-06-06T17:00:29.796-04:00the case is clear-cut and obvious.
What "cas...<em>the case is clear-cut and obvious.</em><br /><br />What "case" is that, Magat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59146106034495153742022-06-06T16:58:48.357-04:002022-06-06T16:58:48.357-04:00That's your basis? Well you certainly didn'...That's your basis? Well you certainly didn't read the indictment. You shouldn't lie like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4650998841856164662022-06-06T16:43:13.429-04:002022-06-06T16:43:13.429-04:004:28,
Because as a matter of FACT, there was actu...4:28,<br /><br />Because as a matter of FACT, there was actually<br /><br /><em>“unusual internet activity connecting two servers registered to Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution, with an email domain associated with the Trump Organization.”</em><br /><br />Asshole. If he was knowingly trying to spread a false story, the last thing he would do would be to ask the FBI to investigate and debunk it.<br /><br />Don't worry, your acne will clear up soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45920626811677485872022-06-06T16:41:03.926-04:002022-06-06T16:41:03.926-04:004:36. - Yes, I pretty much agree with that. You di...4:36. - Yes, I pretty much agree with that. You didn't read the indictment though. You're a liar. If you had, you would know, as lawfare admitted, the case is clear-cut and obvious. There's no debate about it. You're so boring man. There may not have been able to make a legal case about it. That's true. But to deny the case is absurd. Sorry. You can keep doing it. I don't care!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83888441831135646842022-06-06T16:37:29.859-04:002022-06-06T16:37:29.859-04:00(The researchers’ hypothesis was bullshit. The res...(The researchers’ hypothesis was bullshit. The researchers themselves pushed back against it saying that it was obvious the only reason they were making it was because they hated Trump. All of this is in the indictment. You can see that the Tech executive who have been working with Sussman the whole time replied by asking if they could just sign off own it as being merely plausible, not a fact. So that's what they did. Their hypothesis was false, it was concocted, it was a lie that Sussman eventually brought to the FBI and the media, telling each that the other was moving forward on it.) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33053693710997594052022-06-06T16:36:10.507-04:002022-06-06T16:36:10.507-04:004:16,
I read the indictment, you filthy mouth MAG...4:16,<br /><br />I read the indictment, you filthy mouth MAGAT.<br /><br /><em>The document is 27 pages long. And it takes Durham until the eighteenth page before he bothers to discuss the charge that he is alleging. By the twenty-first page, he is on to other uncharged conduct. </em><br /><br />Fucking prosecutorial abuse. And you find it just fine and dandy. If I wanted to hear delusional conspiracy theories from RW fever swamps, I could just turn on FOX NOOZ.<br /><br /><em>Durham sought to use a false statement case to tell a much larger story. He clearly believes there was a deep web of impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton campaign, its lawyers, Fusion GPS, and the FBI. <b>But he has been unable to make that case.</b> So he tried to cram as much of it as he could into the case against Sussmann, which he sought to use to unseat the standard model of the Trump-Russia scandal. </em><br /><br />https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-michael-sussmann-verdictAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54082122590940313542022-06-06T16:28:58.308-04:002022-06-06T16:28:58.308-04:00What is your basis that he thought it might be tru...What is your basis that he thought it might be true? <br /><br />Your quote says, "the allegations never made a great deal of sense", "the whole thing had an innocuous explanation", " there were no such links.".<br /><br />So why would he think it might be true? He worked <i>with</i> the tech executive to get data that was merely "plausible", "NOT a fact". There's no reason he would think it was true. You're stupid but that's cool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-16856634846052372212022-06-06T16:18:34.480-04:002022-06-06T16:18:34.480-04:003:55, you're full of shit.
The Alfa Bank stor...3:55, you're full of shit.<br /><br /><em>The Alfa Bank story was never a big part of L’Affaire Russe. Yes, there was a flurry of press investigation of it in the month before the election, but major press outlets treated it cautiously, as the gravamen of the allegations—that there was some secret link between Trump and Russia through a Russian bank—couldn’t be substantiated. Lawfare, for its part, wrote almost nothing about the matter as part of our extensive coverage of Trump-Russia ties. The reason, quite simply, was that the allegations never made a great deal of sense. For those who need a refresher, the basic issue was that some computer researchers noted what the Senate Intelligence Committee later described as “unusual internet activity connecting two servers registered to Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution, with an email domain associated with the Trump Organization.” <b>The researchers’ hypothesis was that this activity might suggest a secret line of communication between the bank and Trumpworld. </b><br /><br />It didn’t, as the FBI later discerned. The whole thing had an innocuous explanation. As the inspector general put it, “The FBI investigated whether there were cyber links between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank but had concluded by early February 2017 that there were no such links.”</em><br /><br />Why do you think Sussman went to the FBI to investigate the <b>“unusual internet activity connecting two servers registered to Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution, with an email domain associated with the Trump Organization.”</b><br /><br />Obviously because he thought it might be true, jackass. And he did not have the capability to find out by himself. You dumb fuck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72031591077238627012022-06-06T15:55:40.411-04:002022-06-06T15:55:40.411-04:003:43 okay, let me stop fucking your mother for a m...3:43 okay, let me stop fucking your mother for a minute and show you. A tech executive who was working with the Clinton campaign and Sussman, meeting with Sussman regularly, asked his tech researchers to link Trump to something Russian. They immediately pushed back because all they could find was completely tenuous bullshit. The tech executive wrote this back to them:<br /><br /><i>"Please read as if you had no prior knowledge or involvement, and you were handed this document as a security expert (NOT a dns expert) and were asked: 'Is this plausible as an explanation?' NOT to be able to say that this is, without doubt, fact, but to merely be plausible. Do NOT spend more than a short while on this (If you spend more than an hour you have failed the assignment). Hopefully less. :) "</i><br /><br />This is the information that they went with. There is never anyone anywhere who claimed it was true. It was dug up by a standard, as we know directly from the email, of only plausibility. This is the information that Sussman took to the FBI. Everyone knew it was not true and had been invented with the purpose of only sounding plausible. Sussman was working with this Tech executive the whole time. He took the information that only had to meet the standard of being merely plausible and everyone knew was bullshit ("NOT a fact"), wrote a paper about it, and took that paper to the FBI and the media, telling each that the other was moving forward on it, tricking both. The same thing Cheney did with aluminum tubes. So that's the lie dumb ass bitch. How long are you going be my bitch, bitch?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79901374901773123672022-06-06T15:45:27.604-04:002022-06-06T15:45:27.604-04:00You are making a number of assumptions that are fa...You are making a number of assumptions that are false. It may be a much more serious crime (I don't know) but it may not be provable for example. You need to think these things through a little further. But the fact Sussman brought a concocted story to the FBI isn't up for debate. It's a stone cold fact as the Lawfare article above states. At leas they don't weakly deny it as you do. Maybe Sussman could have used plausible deniability. I don't know. But you never even read the indictment, so what the fuck do you know? You just go looking for confirmation bias on emptywheel and paste the first thing you find. You don't know shit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-68249253284984079452022-06-06T15:43:02.391-04:002022-06-06T15:43:02.391-04:00Once again, jackass, show me what information Suss...Once again, jackass, show me what information Sussman brought to the FBI that was false. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53424313178921351352022-06-06T15:34:49.703-04:002022-06-06T15:34:49.703-04:003:23,
See how stupid you are. Durham charged Sus...3:23, <br /><br />See how stupid you are. Durham charged Sussman with lying about who his client was, but didn't think bringing false information to the FBI was a crime? You are the one who keeps claiming Sussman brought a concocted story to the FBI. that would be a crime much more serious than not telling the FBI his client was the Hillary campaign. Are you too stupid to see that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59492294872613367702022-06-06T15:26:10.831-04:002022-06-06T15:26:10.831-04:00I'm a Democrat who voted for Clinton.I'm a Democrat who voted for Clinton.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78909615385725812532022-06-06T15:25:55.077-04:002022-06-06T15:25:55.077-04:00"2:53,
you can't do it, huh MAGAT?"..."2:53,<br /><br />you can't do it, huh MAGAT?"<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60262376807457160212022-06-06T15:23:53.520-04:002022-06-06T15:23:53.520-04:00"2:37, why didn't Durham charge Sussman w..."2:37, why didn't Durham charge Sussman with bringing false information to the FBI?"<br /><br />It may not have been a crime as I've said a number of times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13062848823369947402022-06-06T15:05:08.636-04:002022-06-06T15:05:08.636-04:00I've lost track. Which side is posting the hom...I've lost track. Which side is posting the homophobic and sexist slurs? I need to penalyze their debate points accordingly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52251439841070154732022-06-06T15:00:14.308-04:002022-06-06T15:00:14.308-04:002:37, why didn't Durham charge Sussman with br...2:37, why didn't Durham charge Sussman with bringing false information to the FBI?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22302506929830390022022-06-06T14:58:47.762-04:002022-06-06T14:58:47.762-04:002:53,
you can't do it, huh MAGAT? Sorry, dis...2:53,<br /><br />you can't do it, huh MAGAT? Sorry, disappointed dunski, you'll get her next time, I am sure of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58203062483759330272022-06-06T14:53:19.574-04:002022-06-06T14:53:19.574-04:00"a pretty casual relationship with the truth&..."a pretty casual relationship with the truth", "not a pretty picture", "sleaziness and lack of regard for truth"<br /><br />That is the information Sussman brought to the FBI that was "false", faggot cucksucker. Want to call it a pretty casual relationship with the truth instead of false, cuntrag?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81906656882065325482022-06-06T14:52:20.231-04:002022-06-06T14:52:20.231-04:00The liberal media claim is a “tell” that the perso...The liberal media claim is a “tell” that the person writing it is not arguing in good faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15725915218274808782022-06-06T14:50:05.402-04:002022-06-06T14:50:05.402-04:00Here's what Lawfare wrote at the time - I agre...Here's what Lawfare wrote at the time - I agree with this. This is the truth you have to deal with and has been obscured from you for the most part. Sorry pal, that's the way it is.<br /><br /><i>But the machinations that the Clinton campaign, its lawyers, and a group of unnamed computer security researchers and executives went through to get the matter in front of the FBI and media occupies pages and pages of Durham’s 27-page indictment. <br /><br />This story is, indeed, a sleazy one, in which a group of private investigators, computer security researchers, tech executives and Clinton campaign lawyers access nonpublic data to try to make a colorable case that the Alfa Bank connection represented something nefarious. They put together some white papers on the subject, displaying a pretty casual relationship with the truth along the way, and they dangled those documents in front of the press and law enforcement. It’s not a pretty picture, but it’s pretty typical of opposition research efforts in high-stakes campaigns. The sleaziness and lack of regard for truth is a good reason to be skeptical and careful about such efforts when they inevitably emerge in public during a campaign, but it’s not especially surprising either. It’s also a good reason for the FBI to vet carefully allegations that show up at its door, rather than immediately accept them as true.<br /><br />What’s more, all of this material, which constitutes the majority of the indictment, is wholly non-germane to Sussman’s alleged lie. Sussman, after all, is not accused of lying about the substance of the Alfa Bank allegations, the manner in which the information was obtained or researched, or the role he played in preparing any of it. He is accused of lying about only one thing: who his clients were when he approached the FBI with the material in September 2017.<br /><br />In other words, not only has Durham gone from investigating whether the FBI ran a secret spying operation against the Trump campaign to alleging that it was the victim of crime, but he has used this indictment to tell a mostly-unrelated tale about opposition research by the Clinton campaign and its supporters and lawyers.</i> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com