3
WhoReallyRunsThis 3 points ago +3 / -0

That was a long time ago... They've probably moved on to the even more effective Ivermectin....

3
WhoReallyRunsThis 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can confirm. Correcting a DNS entry, even with many many security layers, can be done fairly quickly. Propagation has been less than 20 minutes or so for the last few years.

This is odd.

1
WhoReallyRunsThis 1 point ago +1 / -0

This was my thought - leak by the good guys with bogus info. They weren't going to cover the live event, but now that they think they are going to humiliate Trump, they will cover it until they find out it was a setup... then they'll turn away from coverage.

Watch.

20
WhoReallyRunsThis 20 points ago +20 / -0

Any semi official sources or resources to validate this phenomenon?

15
WhoReallyRunsThis 15 points ago +16 / -1

I think I'm going to trust Wendy Rogers on this one. Ron has had to apologize for overreacting before and going kinda out of bounds on some things...

Wendy has been a solid, consistent force for integrity. She says it's a win, I'm going to follow that train of thought until I see differently.

2
WhoReallyRunsThis 2 points ago +2 / -0

I suggest deleting this post so you don't have people opening a fake account.

You don't want people thinking YOU are trying to solicit for your own fake account.

4
WhoReallyRunsThis 4 points ago +4 / -0

Right. But at one point, someone in the WH said that USPS was exempt, then they later had to clarify (probably after a shitton of backlash).

Unfortunately, I think a lot of folks in USPS probably will walk. Or I should say Fortunately...

2
WhoReallyRunsThis 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh for sure - without a doubt. And Zuck was 100% on team Hillary/DNC. BUT, I think the evidence in this particular case points elsewhere... I hope we'll see others linked and indicted soon.

This is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

1
WhoReallyRunsThis 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've seen multiple people who think Tech Executive-1 is Zuck, and the three companies in the indictment are Facebook, Instagram, and What's App.

The only problem is, the description given in the indictment kind of excludes those three companies. It basically says it's a company that has a lot of DNS based requests and traffic (more like a Google, which is a domain registrar, and owns/runs the 8.8.8.8 DNS service), and companies 2 & 3 which basically do data-mining on various data sources, such as data from Company-1.

Instagram and WhatsApp aren't data analytics companies... Sure - they definitely have data science folks running analytics on their users, but those aren't what I took as the primary focus from the indictment.

Just some of my thoughts...

4
WhoReallyRunsThis 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think this list is outdated...

I recall seeing USPS employees no longer exempt (or was never exempt, but someone screwed up in an answer at the WH or something). I would imagine other errors exist now too.

46
WhoReallyRunsThis 46 points ago +46 / -0

True, but this was an indictment by a grand jury.

Durham has stated all along that he would only bring charges against those for whom he could get a firm conviction.

I understand being weary and cynical of the process - but I'm going to sit back and enjoy this one.

1
WhoReallyRunsThis 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hoping for a supercut. I can't stand to tune into his failing show.

12
WhoReallyRunsThis 12 points ago +12 / -0

Remember when Project Veritas caught Google admitting to directing web traffic and results in order to influence millions of votes (by their tabulation)?

This story that is unfolding is mind-boggling, and almost brain numbing, since we all know the story, but it's nice to see someone get actual behind-the-scenes dirt out in an indictment.

2
WhoReallyRunsThis 2 points ago +2 / -0

It looks to be "Alfa Bank" according to the [New Yorker article.](It looks to be "Alfa Bank" according to the New Yorker article.)

38
WhoReallyRunsThis 38 points ago +38 / -0

Wow, uhhh. That's a big boom?

If Durham is pulling billing details from the campaign, surely there are notes and such that he dug into at the campaigns also...

10
WhoReallyRunsThis 10 points ago +10 / -0

Not sure. Early indications are feeling a little different on this one. Check out nbcnews' article on the homepage. (I won't link to them on here)

It was pretty damning, stating that the false statements were made knowing the Russia narrative was false, etc.

It basically didn't try to sweep it under the rug, or blast Durham, although they did include a statement from sussmans lawyer, but that would happen on either side.

Potentially a sacrificial lamb, but we shall see

25
WhoReallyRunsThis 25 points ago +25 / -0

I can only imagine that they shield the identities for two reasons, to protect the innocent, or to protect an ongoing investigation.

Clearly it seems to be the latter, imho.

49
WhoReallyRunsThis 49 points ago +49 / -0

Exactly. They are going to downplay this as a simple "gotcha" and compare it to Flynn, but this is WAY different in scope and scale.

12
WhoReallyRunsThis 12 points ago +12 / -0

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21063441/sussmann.pdf

Let me know as you're going back through if I missed anything.

There's some stuff in the later portion about sussman speaking to agency 2, contradicting his earlier statements to the fbi, and claiming that he was directed or discussed with his "client" on the best course of action. It didn't specify which client, and at the time (this was post-campaign) he was no longer billing Hillary, but billing the tech exec...so I have to assume he is implicating the tech exec here

view more: Next ›