1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Re: And now we know active CIA employees were illegally involved

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 10 15:41:13 2023
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 6:32:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/9/23 8:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    by soliciting signatures to the bogus Russian misinformation letter
    from former intel operatives. It's reported that current gov't CIA employees conducted the telephone campaign to get signatories lined
    up for the bogus letter.

    So this is truly outrageous and blatantly illegal campaign meddling.
    Why would the CIA be so willing to get involved? And why would they
    think they'd be immune to action for their malfeasance? I hear people
    say it's just more deep state anti-Trump stuff. But that doesn't
    answer the real why of all this.

    What could possibly have motivated them?
    I see you've caught up with Jim Jordan, who just proved that the
    signatories believed what they wrote,

    Sounds like more BS from you and without a link or anything it will
    remain just that....BS.
    You think any of these people made a call to an old FBI contact
    and asked anything? They had the laptop. You think they couldn't have confirmed with a few days of forensics on the drive?
    Never mind, your ignorant opinion has no merit...the simple answer is yes.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed May 10 18:24:58 2023
    On 5/10/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 6:32:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/9/23 8:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    by soliciting signatures to the bogus Russian misinformation letter
    from former intel operatives. It's reported that current gov't CIA
    employees conducted the telephone campaign to get signatories lined
    up for the bogus letter.

    So this is truly outrageous and blatantly illegal campaign meddling.
    Why would the CIA be so willing to get involved? And why would they
    think they'd be immune to action for their malfeasance? I hear people
    say it's just more deep state anti-Trump stuff. But that doesn't
    answer the real why of all this.

    What could possibly have motivated them?
    I see you've caught up with Jim Jordan, who just proved that the
    signatories believed what they wrote,

    Sounds like more BS from you and without a link or anything it will
    remain just that....BS.

    Why do I have to link to the report you brought up? Look up there where
    you say, "it's reported." That's where the link you demand should be.

    You think any of these people made a call to an old FBI contact
    and asked anything? They had the laptop.

    No, they have a disk image of a hard drive said to be from a laptop. The signatories were careful not to comment on truthfulness of the contents
    so the letter isn't about that.

    You think they couldn't have confirmed with a few days of forensics on the drive?

    They still haven't. The WaPo says most of it "lacks cryptographic
    features that would help experts make a reliable determination of authenticity."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 10 18:49:51 2023
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/10/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 6:32:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/9/23 8:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    by soliciting signatures to the bogus Russian misinformation letter
    from former intel operatives. It's reported that current gov't CIA
    employees conducted the telephone campaign to get signatories lined
    up for the bogus letter.

    So this is truly outrageous and blatantly illegal campaign meddling.
    Why would the CIA be so willing to get involved? And why would they
    think they'd be immune to action for their malfeasance? I hear people >>> say it's just more deep state anti-Trump stuff. But that doesn't
    answer the real why of all this.

    What could possibly have motivated them?
    I see you've caught up with Jim Jordan, who just proved that the
    signatories believed what they wrote,

    Sounds like more BS from you and without a link or anything it will
    remain just that....BS.
    Why do I have to link to the report you brought up? Look up there where
    you say, "it's reported." That's where the link you demand should be.
    You think any of these people made a call to an old FBI contact
    and asked anything? They had the laptop.
    No, they have a disk image of a hard drive said to be from a laptop. The signatories were careful not to comment on truthfulness of the contents
    so the letter isn't about that.
    You think they couldn't have confirmed with a few days of forensics on the drive?
    They still haven't. The WaPo says most of it "lacks cryptographic
    features that would help experts make a reliable determination of authenticity."

    LoL. Since it wasn't encrypted why would you think it would have "cryptographic features"?

    I think the WaPo is just using some big words to confuse you. Apparently it worked.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Thu May 11 09:58:56 2023
    On 5/10/23 8:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/10/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 6:32:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/9/23 8:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    by soliciting signatures to the bogus Russian misinformation letter
    from former intel operatives. It's reported that current gov't CIA
    employees conducted the telephone campaign to get signatories lined
    up for the bogus letter.

    So this is truly outrageous and blatantly illegal campaign meddling. >>>>> Why would the CIA be so willing to get involved? And why would they
    think they'd be immune to action for their malfeasance? I hear people >>>>> say it's just more deep state anti-Trump stuff. But that doesn't
    answer the real why of all this.

    What could possibly have motivated them?
    I see you've caught up with Jim Jordan, who just proved that the
    signatories believed what they wrote,

    Sounds like more BS from you and without a link or anything it will
    remain just that....BS.
    Why do I have to link to the report you brought up? Look up there where
    you say, "it's reported." That's where the link you demand should be.
    You think any of these people made a call to an old FBI contact
    and asked anything? They had the laptop.
    No, they have a disk image of a hard drive said to be from a laptop. The
    signatories were careful not to comment on truthfulness of the contents
    so the letter isn't about that.
    You think they couldn't have confirmed with a few days of forensics on the drive?
    They still haven't. The WaPo says most of it "lacks cryptographic
    features that would help experts make a reliable determination of
    authenticity."

    LoL. Since it wasn't encrypted why would you think it would have "cryptographic features"?

    Cryptographic features = "cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies"

    I think the WaPo is just using some big words to confuse you. Apparently it worked.

    If you think cryptography only refers to encryption of text, I'm not the
    one who's confused. Here's another big word: metadata.

    "The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails
    it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security
    experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found clear evidence
    of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might
    have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said."

    WaPo does say the FBI has the laptop.

    "Analysis was made significantly more difficult, both experts said,
    because the data had been handled repeatedly in a manner that deleted
    logs and other files that forensic experts use to establish a file’s authenticity.

    “No evidence of tampering was discovered, but as noted throughout,
    several key pieces of evidence useful in discovering tampering were not available,” Williams’ reports concluded."

    There's an update on this part:

    "Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on
    the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” —
    an apparent reference to Joe Biden."

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-guo-wengui-bannon-giuliani/

    "On October 22, 2020, Guo created a WhatsApp group with 82 trusted
    allies from around the world. This group included the heads of locally
    based volunteer groups, organized online to support Guo and disseminate
    his pronouncements. These groups, which Guo labeled “farms,” initially formed organically, but Guo in 2020 had asserted control over them,
    using them to raise money for his private ventures and to spread disinformation...

    On October 24, Guo set up another WhatsApp group that included two
    supporters, one in the US and one in Australia, who he tapped to oversee editing and preparing laptop files for publication. The same day, Guo’s assistant, Yvette Wang, sent the two supporters a Dropbox file titled “Salacious Pics Package,” containing a video and 35 images. Wang sent
    the duo additional Dropbox files of Biden material on October 28, titled “Hunter Burisma Emails,” and on November 2, titled “Package for Miles 3.”"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to ScottW on Thu May 11 14:38:04 2023
    On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 11:17:59 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 7:47:05 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 9:43:59 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
    by soliciting signatures to the bogus Russian misinformation letter from former intel operatives. It's reported that current gov't CIA employees conducted the telephone campaign to get signatories lined up for the bogus letter.

    So this is truly outrageous and blatantly illegal campaign meddling. Why would the CIA be so willing to get involved? And why would they think they'd be immune to action for their malfeasance?
    I hear people say it's just more deep state anti-Trump stuff. But that doesn't answer the real why of all this.

    What could possibly have motivated them? So an interesting plausible motive is coming together with RFK Jr. running. He's very open indicating the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK. And according to law all the materials examined by both
    the Warren commission and the subsequent congressional investigation (which arrived at a very different conclusion) were supposed to be declassified and released.

    But...

    https://www.npr.org/2021/10/24/1048813624/white-house-delays-release-of-jfk-assassination-records

    I don't know what Trump would do....and probably neither did the CIA but they could "know" what Joe would do.

    ScottW
    What percentage of current voters were alive in 1963? very few.
    and all those CIA people are long since dead.
    The CIA has tons of lots more recent misdeeds to worry about.

    There is no connection between the Hunter Biden letter and Kennedy's assassination,
    It may be conincidental....or maybe not. But the possibility is clearly visible to anyone with eyes.

    I can't imagine the consequences that will be demanded if it becomes known beyond a reasonable
    doubt the US gov't in the form of the CIA was involved in a coup via assassination.
    The complete loss of any moral high ground by the US alone is difficult to foresee the consequences of.

    And Joe kept all that dirt buried for now anyway.

    ScottW

    Truly delusional!!!
    hat Of all the things CIA officials were thinking about and worried about in 2019
    was the JFK assassination.It wasn't on the radar, it wasn't in the press, everybody involved in CIA stuff
    in 1963 was already dead by 2019
    56 years later!!!!

    The explanation of the letter is simple. They didn't want Trump rooting around causing trouble
    for the swampy intelligence community, and by that, I mean much more current events,

    Your assertion is so ridiculous it does not warrant any further discussions. What have you been smoking?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 11 16:07:08 2023
    On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 8:00:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/10/23 8:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/10/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 6:32:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/9/23 8:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    by soliciting signatures to the bogus Russian misinformation letter >>>>> from former intel operatives. It's reported that current gov't CIA >>>>> employees conducted the telephone campaign to get signatories lined >>>>> up for the bogus letter.

    So this is truly outrageous and blatantly illegal campaign meddling. >>>>> Why would the CIA be so willing to get involved? And why would they >>>>> think they'd be immune to action for their malfeasance? I hear people >>>>> say it's just more deep state anti-Trump stuff. But that doesn't
    answer the real why of all this.

    What could possibly have motivated them?
    I see you've caught up with Jim Jordan, who just proved that the
    signatories believed what they wrote,

    Sounds like more BS from you and without a link or anything it will
    remain just that....BS.
    Why do I have to link to the report you brought up? Look up there where >> you say, "it's reported." That's where the link you demand should be.
    You think any of these people made a call to an old FBI contact
    and asked anything? They had the laptop.
    No, they have a disk image of a hard drive said to be from a laptop. The >> signatories were careful not to comment on truthfulness of the contents >> so the letter isn't about that.
    You think they couldn't have confirmed with a few days of forensics on the drive?
    They still haven't. The WaPo says most of it "lacks cryptographic
    features that would help experts make a reliable determination of
    authenticity."

    LoL. Since it wasn't encrypted why would you think it would have "cryptographic features"?
    Cryptographic features = "cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies"
    I think the WaPo is just using some big words to confuse you. Apparently it worked.
    If you think cryptography only refers to encryption of text,

    Who said text? That's the great thing about encryption. You're not supposed to be able to tell
    what the data you're looking at is. Could be text, a photo, video, audio, or just data. You can't tell.
    I'm not the
    one who's confused. Here's another big word: metadata.

    and the Stevie isn't moving the goal posts....he's leaving the field.

    "The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails
    it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security
    experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found clear evidence
    of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might
    have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said."

    Not available to them...but it would be to the FBI and is probably in
    NSA archives as well.

    You're being deliberate in your ignorance to accept the obvious coverup.
    Your party has been exposed as the most corrupt our country has ever
    been forced to endure and will do anything for political power.

    And now the FBI is blatantly hiding evidence and refusing congressional subpoena.

    How much gov't malfeasance are we supposed to tolerate?

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Thu May 11 18:29:37 2023
    On 5/11/23 6:07 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 8:00:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/10/23 8:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/10/23 5:41 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 6:32:14 AM UTC-7, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 5/9/23 8:43 PM, ScottW wrote:
    by soliciting signatures to the bogus Russian
    misinformation letter from former intel operatives. It's
    reported that current gov't CIA employees conducted the
    telephone campaign to get signatories lined up for the
    bogus letter.

    So this is truly outrageous and blatantly illegal
    campaign meddling. Why would the CIA be so willing to get
    involved? And why would they think they'd be immune to
    action for their malfeasance? I hear people say it's just
    more deep state anti-Trump stuff. But that doesn't answer
    the real why of all this.

    What could possibly have motivated them?
    I see you've caught up with Jim Jordan, who just proved
    that the signatories believed what they wrote,

    Sounds like more BS from you and without a link or anything
    it will remain just that....BS.
    Why do I have to link to the report you brought up? Look up
    there where you say, "it's reported." That's where the link you
    demand should be.
    You think any of these people made a call to an old FBI
    contact and asked anything? They had the laptop.
    No, they have a disk image of a hard drive said to be from a
    laptop. The signatories were careful not to comment on
    truthfulness of the contents so the letter isn't about that.
    You think they couldn't have confirmed with a few days of
    forensics on the drive?
    They still haven't. The WaPo says most of it "lacks
    cryptographic features that would help experts make a reliable
    determination of authenticity."

    LoL. Since it wasn't encrypted why would you think it would have
    "cryptographic features"?
    Cryptographic features = "cryptographic signatures from Google and
    other technology companies"
    I think the WaPo is just using some big words to confuse you.
    Apparently it worked.
    If you think cryptography only refers to encryption of text,

    Who said text? That's the great thing about encryption. You're not
    supposed to be able to tell what the data you're looking at is.
    Could be text, a photo, video, audio, or just data. You can't tell.

    In this case, cryptographic signatures.

    I'm not the one who's confused. Here's another big word: metadata.

    and the Stevie isn't moving the goal posts....he's leaving the
    field.

    It's your choice if you want to feign ignorance as to what the experts
    were referring.

    "The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000
    emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two
    security experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found
    clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, but some of the
    records that might have helped verify contents were not available
    for analysis, they said."

    Not available to them...but it would be to the FBI and is probably
    in NSA archives as well.

    You've fallen into the trap of debating the authenticity of the Hunter
    Biden files when the point is how and by who they were exposed.

    You're being deliberate in your ignorance to accept the obvious
    coverup. Your party has been exposed as the most corrupt our country
    has ever been forced to endure and will do anything for political
    power.

    Says the one who won't condemn an actual coup.

    And now the FBI is blatantly hiding evidence and refusing
    congressional subpoena.

    Jim Jordan gets what he gives.

    How much gov't malfeasance are we supposed to tolerate?

    I'd work backwards from Trump's pardons to see.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)