Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

What Drives Trump Crazy About the Mueller Investigation

Page 8 of 10 [ 156 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

SpiceWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 802

09 Dec 2018, 2:57 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
In recent years, Assange has seemingly been bought and payed for by Putin, and thus is hardly the reliable source he supposedly was.


Kraich

Wether you, like or hate, trust or mistrust, Wikileaks is of literally no relevance to this specific release.
It does not affect, the authenticity of the Podesta and DNC leaks.

Why?

Because the DNC email systems, used something called DKIM verification. Short for "DomainKeys Identified Mail"

Wikipedia has a nice article on it, that hopefully is not TOO technical for casual readers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKey ... ified_Mail

But if you want the cliffs notes.
It was technology introduced years ago, to stop spammers "hijacking" Authentic domain names for their spam.
And it does that job quite well.

A side effect of it however, is that it can be used to mathematically prove the Authenticity of an email and that no modifications have been done to the text or body of the Email.

Even if Wikileaks wanted to, they could not fake or alter those emails, because if they did the DKIM signatures would no longer match.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Dec 2018, 3:07 am

SpiceWolf wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In recent years, Assange has seemingly been bought and payed for by Putin, and thus is hardly the reliable source he supposedly was.


Kraich

Wether you, like or hate, trust or mistrust, Wikileaks is of literally no relevance to this specific release.
It does not affect, the authenticity of the Podesta and DNC leaks.

Why?

Because the DNC email systems, used something called DKIM verification. Short for "DomainKeys Identified Mail"

Wikipedia has a nice article on it, that hopefully is not TOO technical for casual readers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKey ... ified_Mail

But if you want the cliffs notes.
It was technology introduced years ago, to stop spammers "hijacking" Authentic domain names for their spam.
And it does that job quite well.

A side effect of it however, is that it can be used to mathematically prove the Authenticity of an email and that no modifications have been done to the text or body of the Email.

Even if Wikileaks wanted to, they could not fake or alter those emails, because if they did the DKIM signatures would no longer match.


Regardless of the emails authenticity, I don't like Wikileaks.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Piobaire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,347
Location: Smackass Gap, NC

09 Dec 2018, 8:02 am

There's a boogey man in the closet



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,736
Location: Long Island, New York

09 Dec 2018, 9:34 am

Explanation 1. He knows he is guilty as hell and knows the investigation is going to destroy his brand now and in history. Prison is a lot less luxurious then the White House and Trump Tower. Worse then that he will have to be with fellow “losers”. Even worse then that he will have no control, he will constantly have to take orders.

Explanation 2. He is innocent or innocent in his own mind and understands that his constant tweets and outrageous statements have made seemingly every conversation about him.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Dec 2018, 1:47 pm

Piobaire wrote:
There's a boogey man in the closet


I watched that last night. It was hilarious!


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Heat844
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Jul 2018
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 126
Location: South Florida

09 Dec 2018, 8:48 pm

kokopelli wrote:
Heat844 wrote:
You liberals should be aware that Papadopolus' lawyer(s) filed a case that claims that Mueller's appointment was unconstitutional because he wasn't confirmed by the senate. This is the same law that you guys wanna get Whittaker with. However the court rules for 1 they will likely rule for the other. So be careful what you wish for.

But I don't understand something. Weren't Ken Starr(and other special prosecutors) appointed the same way as Mueller? :?


What law claims that Mueller has to be confirmed by the Senate? Do you have any cites of cases establishing precedent?
I don't know what law, but Manafort's lawyers made the case in appeals court but lost(last week I think). I'm pretty sure the Democrats would lose using the same law against Whitaker in the Supreme Court. But there wouldn't be a verdict on that case until after the 210 days(the max term for an acting AG) right? It takes 6-8 months for a SCOTUS verdict doesn't it? But Whitaker is old news anyway.


_________________
Democrats Create Mobs, Republicans Create Jobs


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

10 Dec 2018, 4:37 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Piobaire wrote:
There's a boogey man in the closet


I watched that last night. It was hilarious!


Perhaps this will also provide some amusement:

Conspiracy theorist sues Mueller alleging illegal leaks and surveillance.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,732
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Dec 2018, 5:42 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Piobaire wrote:
There's a boogey man in the closet


I watched that last night. It was hilarious!


Perhaps this will also provide some amusement:

Conspiracy theorist sues Mueller alleging illegal leaks and surveillance.


Let him sue Mueller. When he loses, he'll be paying Mueller's legal costs.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

10 Dec 2018, 6:25 am

Trump will cover it I'm sure.



BeaArthur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Aug 2015
Posts: 5,798

10 Dec 2018, 10:47 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Explanation 1. He knows he is guilty as hell and knows the investigation is going to destroy his brand now and in history. Prison is a lot less luxurious then the White House and Trump Tower. Worse then that he will have to be with fellow “losers”. Even worse then that he will have no control, he will constantly have to take orders.

Explanation 2. He is innocent or innocent in his own mind and understands that his constant tweets and outrageous statements have made seemingly every conversation about him.

I have never really done the thought-experiment of "Trump in prison." It would be sort of like Martha Stewart in prison, except that Trump is a far bigger a-hole than Martha, as much as I'm not keen on Martha.

How will he establish his dominance in the clink? Are they allowed to Tweet in there? How often will he get beaten up in a week? Will he be able to buy special treatment from the administration? I'm trying to imagine him kissing up to the alpha inmate. I think there might be a t.v. series in this...


_________________
A finger in every pie.


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

10 Dec 2018, 12:16 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Russian bot farms.


Where the pee tape is hidden.


Which may be a red herring. The fact that Trump laundered money for Russia is much more damning.


Not seen you mention that the Clintons took over 100 million from a Kremlin bank while selling off 20% of the US's Uranium.


Talk of the Uranium deal from the Trump/Republican perspective is BS as I understand it. I concede I know little of the details about this. If there was anything to it, I would think a full blown investigation would be carried out against the Clintons, as the Republicans are running the show. But the Republicans are doing nothing more than yelling unfounded charges, which tells me there's nothing there.


As you understand it, won't disagree with that. Haha are you serious? The Clintons have got away with so much it's unreal. A lot of Republicans still wish Clinton won.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release


You don't seriously expect me to take anything Wikileaks says as legit, do you?


See I knew you'd do that. This is why you will never learn or change. You didn't even bother to read it. In the piece it links to a story about this issue from the New York Times. So now what will your excuse be for denying the truth?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/c ... .html?_r=0


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

10 Dec 2018, 12:17 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Russian bot farms.


Where the pee tape is hidden.


Which may be a red herring. The fact that Trump laundered money for Russia is much more damning.


Not seen you mention that the Clintons took over 100 million from a Kremlin bank while selling off 20% of the US's Uranium.


Talk of the Uranium deal from the Trump/Republican perspective is BS as I understand it. I concede I know little of the details about this. If there was anything to it, I would think a full blown investigation would be carried out against the Clintons, as the Republicans are running the show. But the Republicans are doing nothing more than yelling unfounded charges, which tells me there's nothing there.


As you understand it, won't disagree with that. Haha are you serious? The Clintons have got away with so much it's unreal. A lot of Republicans still wish Clinton won.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release


You don't seriously expect me to take anything Wikileaks says as legit, do you?



Actually, I don't know why you wouldn't take it seriously. In over ten years that Wikileaks has existed, everything they've released has been proven to be 100% accurate. U.S courts have never been able to indict him for releasing false information. Liberals used to love him when he was exposing s**t on conservatives, but now they want him locked up because he exposed the Dems for the s**t they're doing. If it weren't so disgusting, it would be hysterical.


In recent years, Assange has seemingly been bought and payed for by Putin, and thus is hardly the reliable source he supposedly was.


Don't just make up BS stories cause you don't like the information he has published.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

10 Dec 2018, 12:18 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
SpiceWolf wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In recent years, Assange has seemingly been bought and payed for by Putin, and thus is hardly the reliable source he supposedly was.


Kraich

Wether you, like or hate, trust or mistrust, Wikileaks is of literally no relevance to this specific release.
It does not affect, the authenticity of the Podesta and DNC leaks.

Why?

Because the DNC email systems, used something called DKIM verification. Short for "DomainKeys Identified Mail"

Wikipedia has a nice article on it, that hopefully is not TOO technical for casual readers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKey ... ified_Mail

But if you want the cliffs notes.
It was technology introduced years ago, to stop spammers "hijacking" Authentic domain names for their spam.
And it does that job quite well.

A side effect of it however, is that it can be used to mathematically prove the Authenticity of an email and that no modifications have been done to the text or body of the Email.

Even if Wikileaks wanted to, they could not fake or alter those emails, because if they did the DKIM signatures would no longer match.


Regardless of the emails authenticity, I don't like Wikileaks.


You don't like the answers.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

10 Dec 2018, 3:57 pm

Heat844 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Heat844 wrote:
You liberals should be aware that Papadopolus' lawyer(s) filed a case that claims that Mueller's appointment was unconstitutional because he wasn't confirmed by the senate. This is the same law that you guys wanna get Whittaker with. However the court rules for 1 they will likely rule for the other. So be careful what you wish for.

But I don't understand something. Weren't Ken Starr(and other special prosecutors) appointed the same way as Mueller? :?


What law claims that Mueller has to be confirmed by the Senate? Do you have any cites of cases establishing precedent?
I don't know what law, but Manafort's lawyers made the case in appeals court but lost(last week I think). I'm pretty sure the Democrats would lose using the same law against Whitaker in the Supreme Court. But there wouldn't be a verdict on that case until after the 210 days(the max term for an acting AG) right? It takes 6-8 months for a SCOTUS verdict doesn't it? But Whitaker is old news anyway.


We should never forget that lawyers can, and do, argue everything in hopes that something sticks. Just because they argue something doesn't mean that there is any substance to the argument.

If the Special Counsel law required Senate confirmation, then they would have gone through the process. That they haven't is a strong indication that no Senate confirmation is required.

As for Whitaker, I did some looking to see if an acting/temporary executive such as the Attorney General needed to be confirmed and found absolutely nothing.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

10 Dec 2018, 4:03 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Russian bot farms.


Where the pee tape is hidden.


Which may be a red herring. The fact that Trump laundered money for Russia is much more damning.


Not seen you mention that the Clintons took over 100 million from a Kremlin bank while selling off 20% of the US's Uranium.


Talk of the Uranium deal from the Trump/Republican perspective is BS as I understand it. I concede I know little of the details about this. If there was anything to it, I would think a full blown investigation would be carried out against the Clintons, as the Republicans are running the show. But the Republicans are doing nothing more than yelling unfounded charges, which tells me there's nothing there.


You're right. The Trump fans talk like we are shipping our Uranium to Russian.

The fact is that the Russians bought a company that has large amounts of uranium around the world. If I remember correctly, they were mainly interested in the large deposits in the Ukraine owned by that company. As for uranium in the United States, that uranium is subject to very strong export controls. The odds of the company getting permission from the US government to ship uranium to Russia is vanishingly small.



kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,399
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

10 Dec 2018, 4:13 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Russian bot farms.


Where the pee tape is hidden.


Which may be a red herring. The fact that Trump laundered money for Russia is much more damning.


Not seen you mention that the Clintons took over 100 million from a Kremlin bank while selling off 20% of the US's Uranium.


Talk of the Uranium deal from the Trump/Republican perspective is BS as I understand it. I concede I know little of the details about this. If there was anything to it, I would think a full blown investigation would be carried out against the Clintons, as the Republicans are running the show. But the Republicans are doing nothing more than yelling unfounded charges, which tells me there's nothing there.


As you understand it, won't disagree with that. Haha are you serious? The Clintons have got away with so much it's unreal. A lot of Republicans still wish Clinton won.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release


You don't seriously expect me to take anything Wikileaks says as legit, do you?



Actually, I don't know why you wouldn't take it seriously. In over ten years that Wikileaks has existed, everything they've released has been proven to be 100% accurate. U.S courts have never been able to indict him for releasing false information. Liberals used to love him when he was exposing s**t on conservatives, but now they want him locked up because he exposed the Dems for the s**t they're doing. If it weren't so disgusting, it would be hysterical.


Trying to spin much?

Those who are under confidentiality agreements related to top secret information should be prosecuted for every release of theirs about that information. It doesn't matter if it is true or false. It doesn't matter if it confirms something everyone already knows. It is illegal for them to release it.

One thing they would really like is to get whoever is passing it on to Wikileaks regardless of whether it is true or not.

As for Assange, he has issues of his own that he could be prosecuted for apart from publishing classified information. I don't know what the status is on his rape and molestation charges.

I'd bet that Ecuador is regretting their act of granting him asylum in their industry. It doesn't sound like they are very happy with him.