|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: koods]
#26433316 - 01/14/20 02:22 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Do you mean outside of Seymour Hersh saying a high ranking FBI official told him they found evidence on Seth Rich's computer that he was working with WikiLeaks? And outside the fact that everything the FBI had on Seth Rich was classified TOP SECRET? And outside the fact that Julian Assange said it wasn't Russia?
Wait. You just claimed the FBI didn’t search his computer, and now you’re saying the FBI found eveidnce on his computer. Which is it?
No. The FBI claimed it didn't check Seth Rich's computer, but Seymour Hersh says a high ranking FBI official told him they did.
Quote:
koods said: The claim that the FBI has info on Seth rich that is classified is a totally absurd claim. This was the FOIA request you are referring to, and it’s from the NSA not the FBI.
Quote:
All documents, records, or communications referencing or containing communications between Seth Rich and any of the following: Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Kim Dotcom, Aaron Rich, Shawn Lucas, Kelsey Mulka, Imran Awan, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, Rao Abbas, and/or any person or entity outside of the United States.
This was the response:
Quote:
Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526
The only thing you can conclude from this is that details of Seth Rich’s communications with any of those people list, which includes literally every single person in the world not inside the US have been classified. What is the significance of that?
They classified it TOP SECRET. "Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause 'exceptionally grave damage' to the national security". Why would anything about Seth Rich be of exceptionally grave damage to our national security???
Quote:
koods said: Pretty sure the government cannot release the details of private communications between an American and others without a court order. It certainly doesn’t mean rich was in contact with Wikileaks. That is an absurd leap.
I didn't say he was the leaker. I said he might have been. For you to claim he wasn't given that nobody even checked his computer is an absurd leap.
Quote:
koods said: These claims, like most conspiracy theories, simply crumble under the most gentle of scrutiny.
Well then, let's hear some scrutiny! 
Quote:
koods said: If it’s not evidence of anything then there is no reason to search his computer
Why don’t you explain the probable cause you believe exists for law enforcement to search his computer.
To rule him out as the WikiLeaks leaker, which is what his family claims they want to do.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 2
#26433366 - 01/14/20 02:44 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
“To rule him out...” is not probable cause. If it was, LE’d be able to search literally anyone.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: feldman114]
#26433387 - 01/14/20 02:55 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feldman114 said: “To rule him out...” is not probable cause. If it was, LE’d be able to search literally anyone.
Fine. But I disagree with koods' logic that because Seth's computer isn't subject to search, that somehow means he couldn't have given WikiLeaks the files.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 2
#26433430 - 01/14/20 03:13 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
He never said he COULDNT. Just that he didn’t. That’s generally accepted, so it should be disputed with proof, not conspiracy theories.
Believing everything you see in MSM is dumb. But Assuming everything MSM reports is a lie is way dumber. It’s the same trap, except you’re “catching” yourself in it lol
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: feldman114]
#26433454 - 01/14/20 03:27 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Again, I never said I know Seth Rich was the leaker, I said we can't know that he wasn't. Saying he didn't do it is dumber than saying he may have done it.
Quote:
feldman114 said: ...it should be disputed with proof, not conspiracy theories.
Agreed.
Which of the following do you feel is a conspiracy theory?
1. The FBI said they never checked Seth Rich's computer. 2. Seymour Hersh said a high ranking FBI official told him they found evidence on Seth Rich's computer that he was working with WikiLeaks. 3. The US Government classified their information on Seth Rich TOP SECRET. 4. The US Government never proved the Russian Government gave the emails to Wikileaks 5. Julian Assange said he didn't get the emails from Russia
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (01/14/20 03:41 PM)
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26433489 - 01/14/20 03:47 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
2. Seymour Hersh said a high ranking FBI official told him they found evidence on Seth Rich's computer that he was working with WikiLeaks.
This is from wikipedia
Quote:
Seth Rich[edit] On August 1, 2017, Hersh was interviewed by National Public Radio for a story on a lawsuit related to an investigation into the 2016 death of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich. In the interview, Hersh denied a claim by investigator Ed Butowsky that Hersh had said he'd spoken to a Federal Bureau of Investigation source who confirmed the existence of information on Rich's laptop computer showing he had been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to his death. In the NPR interview, Hersh dismissed the claim as "gossip".[91]
This is the reference, "91"
Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: JohnRainy]
#26433497 - 01/14/20 03:52 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Hersh denied a claim by investigator Ed Butowsky that Hersh had said he'd spoken to a Federal Bureau of Investigation source who confirmed the existence of information on Rich's laptop computer showing he had been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to his death. In the NPR interview, Hersh dismissed the claim as "gossip".
Here's the interview. Well worth a listen:
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26433555 - 01/14/20 04:30 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
1. Is a fact. 2. Is meaningless, inadmissible hearsay. 3. Can mean 1000 different things. Doesn’t have to be related to be classified. 4. Is irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything. 5. Assange is not a source of evidence. Also, see 2.
Irrefutable proof is hard to find, even when the crime WAS committed. Just ask Mueller.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: JohnRainy]
#26433559 - 01/14/20 04:33 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Seymour Hersh knows damn well what happens to people that rat on the Western Governments (see Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, etc).
He even said in the interview "I met Julian 10-12 years ago. I stay the fuck away from people like that. When I'm London, I always get a message saying 'come see me at the Ecuadorian embassy'. I say 'fuck you, I ain't going there'. I've got enough trouble without getting photographed. He's under total surveillance by everybody".
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26433569 - 01/14/20 04:38 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
yeah, not like those lucky bastards who rat on Russia and get their children poisoned with nerve gas.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: feldman114]
#26433574 - 01/14/20 04:40 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feldman114 said: 1. Is a fact. 2. Is meaningless, inadmissible hearsay. 3. Can mean 1000 different things. Doesn’t have to be related to be classified. 4. Is irrelevant and doesn’t prove anything. 5. Assange is not a source of evidence. Also, see 2.
Irrefutable proof is hard to find, even when the crime WAS committed. Just ask Mueller.
I'll say again, I realize this doesn't prove Seth Rich gave information to WikiLeaks. But it's more proof than we have showing Seth Rich didn't leak the evidence. Or am I missing something?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Sulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes


Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 3,942
Last seen: 2 hours, 11 minutes
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26433582 - 01/14/20 04:44 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
I may not be comprehending something but it seems to me like youre inflating a big nothing burger to be a delicious 1/4 pounder with something on it.
Edited by Sulfurshelfsean (01/14/20 04:44 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Sulfurshelfsean]
#26433587 - 01/14/20 04:47 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Again, I'm not saying Seth Rich is the leaker.
I'm saying we can't know that he is not the leaker, as has been claimed.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
feldman114
Stragler


Registered: 09/06/19
Posts: 3,365
Loc: Bravos
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26433598 - 01/14/20 05:02 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Again, I'm not saying Seth Rich is the leaker.
I'm saying we can't know that he is not the leaker, as has been claimed.
The same can be said about you...wait a minute...it all makes sense now.
Unless....omg...it’s me! I’m the leaker!
Prove that I’m not. You can’t! Therefore I am. (Your entire argument) Here’s what you’re “missing”: no one is TRYING to prove he didn’t do it. That’s why there’s no proof.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: "FBI admits illegal wiretapping of President Trump, issues apology" [Re: feldman114] 1
#26433658 - 01/14/20 05:49 PM (4 years, 15 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feldman114 said: omg...it’s me! I’m the leaker!
Prove that I’m not. You can’t! Therefore I am. (Your entire argument)
No. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you get it. I'm NOT saying Seth is the leaker. I'm saying there is more evidence Seth is the leaker than there is he is not. And there is no evidence you are the leaker, although I certainly agree it is possible.
Quote:
feldman114 said: Here’s what you’re “missing”: no one is TRYING to prove he didn’t do it.
You must have missed is all of koods' many posts above saying this was "debunked" and "rebutted".
At least you appear to be smarter than he is.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|