Skip to comments.'Russian election hack impossible': NSA veteran & whistleblower
Posted on 07/18/2018 4:54:57 PM PDT by raiderboy
click here to read article
Thank you, John Brennan.
Looking at this and seeing Paul Sperry’s new report, maybe there was NO Russian hacking at all. Indeed, no HACKING at all.
No wonder President Trump was repeating “where’s the DNC server” over and over. The server would tell if there was hacking. My head spins.
yep. Here is what will happen. “the Severs are not necessary!! We have the images”. Know this please. Images are EASILY embedded and modified. EASILY!!. The way you validate the image is the source. The DNC servers ( the source) were destroyed in July of 2016!! Because they refused to give them to the FBI for forensic analyses BECAUSE they showed no hacking. The indictments are phony as hell and BS to support this narrative, “ Donald Trump should not be president because the election was illegitimate” Cut to the bottom line and know this.
God bless you guys. Go read my attacks here on me and you will see the Government in operation. I flushed them out!!
His name was Seth Rich and he died for his actions to like Snowden expose what was going on. In the recovered e-mails Podesta writes about finding the person (not organization) responsible and taking care of them. Seth survived the initial attack but the was taken out while in the hospital. He had already passed on the data on the key just as Snowden had with MicroSD cards with all of the records he pulled from the Data storage in Hawaii while serving there.
Neat little story about Snowden, he built the backup program that made sure in case of disaster that all the data the CIA had in that area was immediately moved elsewhere as standard operating procedure as the CIA did not want to lose a thing. The Missile attack on Hawaii was indeed real but fired from a submarine not NK and was not a ballistic one. But it served the purpose of an alert in Hawaii and all the data stored there had to move and the White Hats were ready and pulled a copy. As Q said “we have it all”, and we can in retrospect thank Snowden for writing the program and then sharing it with the good guys who used it to get to data otherwise unavailable or hidden. He was known by his code name “Heartbeat” and he was involved in massive amounts of coding and program development when he was in the agency.
yep. the deep state and their propaganda media screaming “AGREE WITH YOUR IC, TRUMP”
Meanwhile where is the proof? Mueller says so, yet nobody has looked at the server?
That is very interesting and I fully believe you. You know of which you speak. We must fight with the truth. Thanks.
RT America. RT America is a TV channel based in Washington, D.C., and part of the RT network, a global multilingual television news network based in Moscow, Russia, and funded by the Russian government.
“Almost as bad as the legitimacy of using statements by the big dogs at the DOJ and the FBI isnt it?”
You make that silly analogy (which is incorrect) as if I do go by the “statements by the big dogs at the DOJ and the FBI”; which I don’t. And, just as in the case presented to start this thread, there are other American sources I can go to, that counter what is coming from DO & FBI, WITHOUT going to RT.
“I dont understand why any Freeper does not think as I do about the unreliability of the DOJ, the FBI, and the entire intelligence community.”
I think most Freepers do agree with that.
“RT is not the source. Bill Binney is. He is very credible.”
It may be material from Bill Binney, but the SOURCE presenting it is RT. I don’t support RT and what Bill Binney has to say is available from American sources.
“I didn’t see you refuse to suggest child pedophilia as being a bad thing on this thread, do you support child pedophilia? “
No you are just being ridiculous. Go away.
I used the word because I’m ignorant of the specific activities.
Today I’ve seen two articles that use that word.
So if RT links to a video of Ronald Reagan, we should ignore the video and focus on RT? That’s silly. I know all about RT. I looked at the video linked in the article, and I know who Bill Binney is and that he is very credible. If I find the video through RT or through FR, it doesn’t matter. What matters is Binney.
Now if RT has an article quoting some source that is not identified, that is a different matter. It didn’t in this case.
Wholesale refusal to look at information because you found it through RT will cause you to miss valid sources. Personally, I hope lots of people read this particular article and watch the Binney video.
Go away. If you want to support the click income of RT, go ahead. I won’t. The issue is not the content, it’s the carrier, and as I keep rrpeating Binney’s material is available without giving support to RT. By the way, so is Reagan’s.
I’d prefer you go away, newbie. RT is no worse than posting from the NYT or WaPo which is done here dozens of times a day. When any of those biased sources are posted here, it is incumbent on the reader to analyze the substance of the content. A refusal to read it at all is a sign of a weak mind.
If you cannot distinquish between a foreign state-media enterprize, out of a nation like Russia, and our own internal political differences among our own U.S. media venues, then you don’t have much respect for “freedom of the press” as in NOT run by the state.
The WaPo is an entity under the control of the CIA. The NYT is an entity under the control of the progressive. They both seek the destruction of America as we know it. They are not different in kind from Pravda or Tass, and RT is probably less biased in favor of Russia than they are in favor of fascism. All of them are propaganda outlets; sometimes they have actual information. RT’s article did, about something that would not be reported in American media. Unless someone was constantly searching for Bill Binney’s latest youtube video, you would never know he had one unless RT had an article about it.
You have an extreme anti-RT bias, we get it. Also a naive view of American media that has no basis in reality. I have the ability to read biased sources and determine what info is reliable. You should probably stick to National Review or Glenn Beck.
“You have an extreme anti-RT bias, we get it. Also a naive view of American media that has no basis in reality.”
Sorry, YOU are naive in thinking I do not understand the Leftist reality of so much of the American media, like the ones you mention. You could not be more wrong. Muy stadard descripton for NYTimes is Pravda on the Hudson.
HOWEVER, YOUR ARE NAIVE in thinking to get outside of those venues it requires anyone to go to RT. It doesn’t. There are dozens of Conservative venues to go to, and they provide no need to go to RT.
You are boring me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.