No Russian Collusion? What now?

[Rigby5]

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

Great, then explain to the class why the brand matter when doing a byte-by-byte copy of one drive to another, assuming the storage capacity on the destination drive is at least as big as the source drive......

The reason the brand and version of the drive matter is that the mapping of virtual to physical sectors of the drive are dependent upon the embedded firmware scheme. You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades. The reasons for this include the ability to map out bad sectors, allow encryption, to allow RAID sort of distribution of sectors so that you can read the next sector off a different platter at the same time you read the previous sector, etc. Sectors used to originally be physical and sequential, but now are virtual and can be distributed for faster access vertically instead of sequentially. It all depends on brand, version, etc. Harddrives have their own processors and complex cache schemes. You would have to reverse engineer the entire scheme in order to read from RAW bytes. You could do that 30 years ago, but not any more.

“You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades.”

Thanks again for demonstrating for the forum that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

File allocation tables look at clusters, not sectors...

A sector is a fixed division of a track on a disk. And A cluster is a group of contiguous sectors and basic unit for FAT32 files. The FAT tables in FAT32 provide information about used clusters, reserved clusters, and free clusters. All clusters allocated for a file is organized by FAT tables in a linked list manner .

Wrong, you do not read clusters, you read sectors. Sure a cluster is a group of sectors and is how you find the sectors, but is it sectors you read.
Clusters exist as a way of avoiding the sector details in the file table system.
And FAT32 is not only somewhat obsolete, but only 1 of many different allocation table system.
For example, the UEFI boot system uses the GUID Partition table instead of a FAT table.
Windows uses NTFS by default.
Linux uses Ext, Ext2, Ext3, Ext4, JFS, XFS, btrfs and swap.
I deliberately avoided referencing clusters since they are not universal to all file systems, and mean nothing at all to the drives.
I doubt the DNC servers were using FAT32.

“Wrong, you do not read clusters, you read sectors.”

Now you’re lying about what I said. I said nothing about how data is read. I said file allocation tables index by clusters, not sectors. I even posted a link describing how a file allocation table uses clusters.

“Sure a cluster is a group of sectors and is how you find the sectors”

LOLOL

Yeah, you say that now, now that your ignorance in the subject was exposed. But earlier, you were talking about file allocation tables and sectors.

Linux uses Ext, Ext2, Ext3, Ext4, JFS, XFS, btrfs and swap.

Swap is not a file system. It’s a partition used to extend memory by storing raw memory and doesn’t even rely on a file allocation table.

And for shareability, Linux also supports NTFS and various flavors of FAT, which rely on clusters to find files.

You do not understand file allocation tables.
Clusters are NOT used to access the hard drive.
Clusters are just used to indicate file length, in a rounded up group size, to provide for easier caching.
Cluster size is only used to tell you how much free space you still have.
It is not how you get to the data on the drive.
And FAT32 has been obsolete since Windows NT.

The reason only sectors matter, is because sector became virtual about 20 years ago.
They are no longer physical, so are not sequential any more.
So you have to look up each one in order to find out where each virtual sector is mapped to a physical sector.

And yes, Swap IS a file system. When memory pages need to be put off on the drive, it uses a special swap file system. It is not the same file system the user is using. Swap files have their own file system.

I have never used NTFS or any flavor of FAT on Linux, but that does not mean they don't.
The fact you can do a dual boot suggest it may be reasonable.
But it hardly matters since the important point is that hard drives are accessed by sectors, which are virtual these days.

You don't seen cluster read requests to the hard drive, you sent sector reads.

 

[Rigby5]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

We have the best investigative cyber division in the world... next to maybe the Russians, who are well trained as well....

What are ya trying to do, impersonate Trump..telling us a bunch of grandiose crud about yourself? The BIGGEST, the Greatest.... the Bestest (sic)

and yes, they know a hell of a lot more than you.... and when they don't, they know who to go to in the private sector, that can help.


A copy of the servers affected is what they used and experts say, this is what is best to use, vs the original server.


Trump's Stupid ‘Where Is the DNC Server?’ Conspiracy Theory, Explained

Even so, what CrowdStrike gave the FBI is likely better than if it had seized and analyzed a physical box.

“To keep it simple, let’s say there’s only one server. CrowdStrike goes in, makes a complete image including a memory dump of everything that was in the memory of the server at the time, including traffic and connections at the time,” Rid said. “You have that image from the machine live in the network including its memory content, versus a server that someone physically carries into the FBI headquarters. It’s unplugged, so there’s no memory content because it’s powered down. That physical piece of hardware is less valuable for an investigation than the onsite image and data extraction from a machine that is up and running. The idea a physical server would add any value doesn’t make any sense.”

What Rid means is that after a hack, some of the evidence of who did it and how they did it may be fleeting. It could be in the server’s memory, the RAM, and not stored on its hard drive. (Hackers use “fileless” malware precisely for this reason.) To preserve evidence in cases like these, incident responders need to make an image—essentially a copy of the server in that exact same state at that exact same time—so they can look at it afterwards. Think about this like when investigators take pictures of the crime scene or victim.

Lesley Carhart, principal threat hunter at the cybersecurity firm Dragos, told Motherboard that physical servers are rarely seized in forensics investigations.

"For decades, it has been industry-standard forensic and digital evidence handling practice to conduct analysis on forensic images instead of original evidence," she said. "This decreases the risk of corruption or accidental modification of that evidence."

I asked Rid if he thought it was suspicious that the DNC did not hand over the actual server to the FBI, and he said “no, not at all.”

Also, the copy of the server hard drives is only step one in the process.... it doesn't tell you much, all the other legwork is where the prosecution/indictments come from....

“To really investigate a high profile intrusion like the DNC hack, you have to look beyond the victim network,” Rid said. “You have to look at the infrastructure—the command and control sites that were used to get in that are not going to be on any server ... looking at one server is just one isolated piece of infrastructure.”

And this is what they did to get this information on the Russian hacks


https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

First of all, the DNC hack is of unknown time, but the best guess is that it was not detected for several months, meaning that a memory dump would be useless.
Second is that in the quote:
{... “To really investigate a high profile intrusion like the DNC hack, you have to look beyond the victim network,” Rid said. “You have to look at the infrastructure—the command and control sites that were used to get in that are not going to be on any server ... looking at one server is just one isolated piece of infrastructure.” ...}
Clearly a copy of a drive would be totally useless, and would not even be possible to log as evidence.
I agree you would need to examine the routers, switches, configurations, and the whole network. Which could really only be done on site. Someone handing you a copy of a drive is totally and completely useless.

”Clearly a copy of a drive would be totally useless, and would not even be possible to log as evidence.”

That is absolute more made up bullshit. A byte-by-byte duplicate is an exact copy of the original. As long as they copied the entire image, ALL of the data on the original drives would be on the copies.

How are you going to do a byte-by-byte copy?
Sectors are virtual, not sequential, are mapped differently on different drives, due to things like different bad sectors being marked out, different RAID caching schemes, etc.
The data also includes the file allocation information, free sector table, marked out sectors, etc., and that has to different on different drives.
There may be ways to do this, but no one could possibly use a copy as evidence because it would likely be altered by error is nothing else, and allows for possible intentional deception.
For something to be evidence, the defense experts would have to have access to the original, so they could ensure no foul play by the prosecution.

 

[Aponi]

Now that Cohen has been revealed as a total nothing-burger, what shall we do next?

Should we pretend Cohen never happened and continue the collusion narrative, promising an impending Mueller "bombshell"? Or shall we take a different, wiser tangent? One thing is certain, Trump is GUILTY and UNFIT, and something must be done. Even a Republican like me knows that!

So in true bipartisan spirit, I've compiled some possibilities that should be considered. I've run these through the same computer used to predict global warming, so the actual probabilities are included. They're 100% accurate, you can trust me:

• Trump is an alien from the planet Flaflooga, sent to take over the Earth with his mind-ray: 87%
• Trump is literally Hitler, thawed from cryogenic suspension and here to establish the New Reich: 92%
• A Genuine Birth Certificate will be found proving that Trump is a Russian national (how ironic!): 41%
• Cancelled checks from Trump to Putin with the memo "Thanks for the boost" will surface: 78%
• Trump and Pence will both get "an offer they can't refuse" from Kim: 18%
• Pelosi and Schumer will prove that Trump is actually their 17 year old love child: 29%
• AOC will tweet a clapback so stunning that Trump will resign in shame: 65%

As you can see, there is at least a 410% chance that Trump should not be President. I'm sure there are more possibilities, but the computer overheated. This should take us well past 2020.

You're welcome, Democrats!

Why they have started 85 additional investments.
Like seriously

 

[basquebromance]

they're not investigating a crime, they're trying to overthrow the will of the American voter!

more idiots voted for Hillary but trump got the votes that counted

we should revolt!

 

[XponentialChaos]

that was verbatim.

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

so you made it up. way to admit it. I believe the forum has rules on that.

i don't need to make things up. did YOU watch the whole thing? did YOU hear every question & every reply? i did. he was asked if he had 'direct knowledge' & he said 'no'. then he was asked if he thought trump was capable of conspiring with the russians, & cohen answered 'yes'.

I could give two shits what you think you heard. you're posting hearsay and not quotes, so factually, that is a quote without evidence. so feel free to locate the copy of the testimony and quote the statement you're trying quote. then we'll be good.

I believe this is what was being referred to.

 

[Rigby5]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

 

[Faun]

I said, ”Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI,” clearly speaking of the DNC’s servers, which had nothing at all to do with Hillary’s servers; to which you replied... ”yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.”

Yes, you are completely confused as “those copies” were not “missing over 30,000 email.” Again, those were copies of the DNC servers; while the 33,000 missing email were deleted from Hillary’s servers, not the DNC’s.

As far as your knowledge on hard drives, it really wasn’t necessary for you to exhibit sheer ignorance on the technology. You did get the size correct though, I’ll give you that. The destination drive must have at least as much storage capacity as the source drive, and ideally in this case, would be the same size, but that’s all you got right. And I expect a professional company as CrowdStrike, who are in that industry, know enough to know that.

This is not a 2 person conversation. There are other people claiming it was Hillary's email server that was hacked. And it was Hillary that would not allow the FBI to check for the missing emails or evidence of hacking. Hillary did give the FBI a copy of the drives, but that did not at all help in supplying the missing 30,000 emails.
Of course I was unaware the DNC had also supplied copies of their drives because that makes no sense. If you actually want to find deleted files of evidence of hacking, you need the original drives in the machine they were in at the time. You don't want copies, and copies are not going to do any good.
You don't want RAW bytes because they you have to carefully find and interpret the file allocation tables, and then follow their entries to find the actual sectors. That is very difficult these days because all drives use a virtualization scheme for sectors, so that they can map out bad ones, and implement drive encryption. It is not as simple as just looking at RAW bytes. The interpretation is very difficult unless you perfectly shadow it onto the exact same media, in size, brand, embedded firmware, etc.

And yet, despite your ignorance on the subject, the FBI found the copies an “acceptable substitute.” You’ve not convinced me you know more than they do. And yes, access to raw data is also vital in performing forensics on a hard drive as that is how to view data that was deleted after being sent to the “recycle bin.” Also, if you do a copy like that to a similar sized drive with the same cluster size on both and you plug that into the same OS as the source, the undeleted files and files marked for deletion can be read.

That is the part that proves the FBI's ignorance or corruption. They should not have accepted copies, and instead insisted on the originals. That fact I know more about computers is obvious, since they are paid for law enforcement by a the federal government, and I am paid by Intel, HP, IBM, Sequent, Microsoft, Apple, etc., to work on computers.
Yes you might succeed if you use the same size drive, with same brand, version, embedded system, etc.
But likely hopeless if you use a different size drive, different brand, different version of firmware, etc.
The algorithm that locates actual physical sectors from the virtual requests is not going to be the same even if the different sectors have been mapped out as bad, the allocation table is set up differently, the drive uses a different RAID optimization mapping, etc.
But that does also depend on what is meant is meant by a RAW copy. If you use the firmware from the original drive, and follow the file allocation table routines for a virtual sector by sector copy, there is a chance that might work even though the destination drive was using different firmware, allocation table routines, etc. But the FBI should never have taken that risk. They should have used the original drives, taken them as evidence, and left the DNC to use the copies. They failed in their ability to ensure a credible line of evidence. They could have been given anything. They can't use anything they get from the copies because they could easily not be accurate or even deliberately manipulated.

LOLOLOL

Now you’re just making more shit up. You have not demonstrated you know more than folks working in the FBI. Nor do you demonstrate you know more than folks working for CrowdStrike, the cyber security firm who made the copies. You actually exhibit ignorance on how to copy hard drives and how useful a copy is.

And despite your meaningless protests, CrowdStrike delivered useful copies of the hard drives to to the FBI. We know this because the FBI found them to be an “adequate substitute,” and they would know since they’rr In the business of performing forensic tests on such equipment. They also know the quality of the copies, which you actually have zero knowledge of. And along with other corroborating evidence, they were able to use those copies to determine who the hackers were.

Now stop making shit up.

Nope.
FBI does not make computers, and does not know nearly as much as those who do.
Copies are NOT legal evidence.
They are worthless.
And no, the FBI has said they suspect Russian hackers, but it could just have easily have been an inside job, since they went to Wikileaks.
There is no proof because there never can be any proof.
I can easily work through a bot embedded in a computer in Moscow, and it would not mean I was in Moscow.
It is the FBI saying a copy was an "adequate substitute" that proves their incompetence.
You should know that.

”FBI does not make computers, and does not know nearly as much as those who do.”

LOLOL

All you have is made up shit. Again, CrowdStrike made the copies, not the FBI. You have no idea what drives were used, you have no idea of the level of expertise of those who handled the drives, you have no idea of the quality of the backups, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you have not an iota of evidence to support a word you’re making up. You’re dismissed.

 

[Faun]

Great, then explain to the class why the brand matter when doing a byte-by-byte copy of one drive to another, assuming the storage capacity on the destination drive is at least as big as the source drive......

The reason the brand and version of the drive matter is that the mapping of virtual to physical sectors of the drive are dependent upon the embedded firmware scheme. You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades. The reasons for this include the ability to map out bad sectors, allow encryption, to allow RAID sort of distribution of sectors so that you can read the next sector off a different platter at the same time you read the previous sector, etc. Sectors used to originally be physical and sequential, but now are virtual and can be distributed for faster access vertically instead of sequentially. It all depends on brand, version, etc. Harddrives have their own processors and complex cache schemes. You would have to reverse engineer the entire scheme in order to read from RAW bytes. You could do that 30 years ago, but not any more.

“You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades.”

Thanks again for demonstrating for the forum that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

File allocation tables look at clusters, not sectors...

A sector is a fixed division of a track on a disk. And A cluster is a group of contiguous sectors and basic unit for FAT32 files. The FAT tables in FAT32 provide information about used clusters, reserved clusters, and free clusters. All clusters allocated for a file is organized by FAT tables in a linked list manner .

Wrong, you do not read clusters, you read sectors. Sure a cluster is a group of sectors and is how you find the sectors, but is it sectors you read.
Clusters exist as a way of avoiding the sector details in the file table system.
And FAT32 is not only somewhat obsolete, but only 1 of many different allocation table system.
For example, the UEFI boot system uses the GUID Partition table instead of a FAT table.
Windows uses NTFS by default.
Linux uses Ext, Ext2, Ext3, Ext4, JFS, XFS, btrfs and swap.
I deliberately avoided referencing clusters since they are not universal to all file systems, and mean nothing at all to the drives.
I doubt the DNC servers were using FAT32.

“Wrong, you do not read clusters, you read sectors.”

Now you’re lying about what I said. I said nothing about how data is read. I said file allocation tables index by clusters, not sectors. I even posted a link describing how a file allocation table uses clusters.

“Sure a cluster is a group of sectors and is how you find the sectors”

LOLOL

Yeah, you say that now, now that your ignorance in the subject was exposed. But earlier, you were talking about file allocation tables and sectors.

Linux uses Ext, Ext2, Ext3, Ext4, JFS, XFS, btrfs and swap.

Swap is not a file system. It’s a partition used to extend memory by storing raw memory and doesn’t even rely on a file allocation table.

And for shareability, Linux also supports NTFS and various flavors of FAT, which rely on clusters to find files.

You do not understand file allocation tables.
Clusters are NOT used to access the hard drive.
Clusters are just used to indicate file length, in a rounded up group size, to provide for easier caching.
Cluster size is only used to tell you how much free space you still have.
It is not how you get to the data on the drive.
And FAT32 has been obsolete since Windows NT.

The reason only sectors matter, is because sector became virtual about 20 years ago.
They are no longer physical, so are not sequential any more.
So you have to look up each one in order to find out where each virtual sector is mapped to a physical sector.

And yes, Swap IS a file system. When memory pages need to be put off on the drive, it uses a special swap file system. It is not the same file system the user is using. Swap files have their own file system.

I have never used NTFS or any flavor of FAT on Linux, but that does not mean they don't.
The fact you can do a dual boot suggest it may be reasonable.
But it hardly matters since the important point is that hard drives are accessed by sectors, which are virtual these days.

You don't seen cluster read requests to the hard drive, you sent sector reads.

And there you are, lying again about what I actually said. I never said file allocation tables use clusters to access data. I said they use clusters as an index to the files on the drive. They map the location of files by the clusters in which the files reside.

 

[Faun]

they're not investigating a crime, they're trying to overthrow the will of the American voter!

more idiots voted for Hillary but trump got the votes that counted

we should revolt!

Why revolt? You’re already revolting.

 

[playtime]

that was verbatim.

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

so you made it up. way to admit it. I believe the forum has rules on that.

i don't need to make things up. did YOU watch the whole thing? did YOU hear every question & every reply? i did. he was asked if he had 'direct knowledge' & he said 'no'. then he was asked if he thought trump was capable of conspiring with the russians, & cohen answered 'yes'.

I could give two shits what you think you heard. you're posting hearsay and not quotes, so factually, that is a quote without evidence. so feel free to locate the copy of the testimony and quote the statement you're trying quote. then we'll be good.

lol... you lazy ass troll. so YOU didn't watch it & YOU didn't hear it.... i did.

note the quote asshole:

"Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions," Cohen said.

Cohen: 'I do not' have direct evidence of collusion between Trump, Russia

 

[playtime]

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck
you can go get

Translation: "I suffer from severe TDS"

^^^ translation: suffers from cheeto dust suffocation from being way up donny's ass ^^^

No Russian Collusion? What now?

 

[playtime]

Hard to believe Cohen is actually a lawyer.
It seems he plead guilty to something that is not even a crime, paying blackmail.
The John Edwards case showed the jury was having none of it.
Clearly campaign finance laws only have jurisdiction over someone monopolizing media, not paying blackmail.
You can NEVER criminalize paying blackmail because that makes you complicit in the blackmail.

paying that cash was a campaign violation because its revelation could have influenced the election outcome.

 

[jc456]

michael cohen said he had no direct knowledge. that does not mean that there is no collusion. actually there is no 'collusion'.... it's 'conspiracy to defraud the united states'.

nice try, but it doesn't fly & your spin just won't be cutting it today.

I love how you leftists move goal posts.

that was verbatim.

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

 

[danielpalos]

Flip Trump!

Our left wing public policies,

or Else!

 

[playtime]

michael cohen said he had no direct knowledge. that does not mean that there is no collusion. actually there is no 'collusion'.... it's 'conspiracy to defraud the united states'.

nice try, but it doesn't fly & your spin just won't be cutting it today.

I love how you leftists move goal posts.

that was verbatim.

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

or you could have. why not? cause you either didn't want to know the truth or you don't care what the truth is. either one make you a basket dweller. i got the quote for you not to prove i tell the truth - cause there's no need to lie... but to give myself an reason to say fuck you.... & neener neener.

lol...........i did notice you didn't address the f-a-c-t that there is a quote & cohen never said there was no collusion.

 

[jc456]

I love how you leftists move goal posts.

that was verbatim.

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

or you could have. why not? cause you either didn't want to know the truth or you don't care what the truth is. either one make you a basket dweller. i got the quote for you not to prove i tell the truth - cause there's no need to lie... but to give myself an reason to say fuck you.... & neener neener.

lol...........i did notice you didn't address the f-a-c-t that there is a quote & cohen never said there was no collusion.

why? i made no claim. you did. that's your responsibility in this forum. why are you fking losers against fking rules? I don't get it.

If you want respect, give some fking respect.

 

[playtime]

that was verbatim.

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

or you could have. why not? cause you either didn't want to know the truth or you don't care what the truth is. either one make you a basket dweller. i got the quote for you not to prove i tell the truth - cause there's no need to lie... but to give myself an reason to say fuck you.... & neener neener.

lol...........i did notice you didn't address the f-a-c-t that there is a quote & cohen never said there was no collusion.

why? i made no claim. you did. that's your responsibility in this forum. why are you fking losers against fking rules? I don't get it.

If you want respect, give some fking respect.

haaaaaaaaaaaa........................ you thought i made it up. that's not respectful, given that i always will back up what i say. you still demanded a link & i gave you a link & you didn't acknowledge that it existed. how rude.

how deplorably rude.

 

[jc456]

why wasn't it in quotes? and where is the link?

you want quotes?

"no".

there. i watched the entire thing - i heard every word... you want a link? find the transcript & read it for yourself. i understand it's over 200 pages. you'll need a few cans of spinach for that one. good luck

you can go get

BTW, have you ever heard of the find or search buttons in documents on the internet? dude, you are truly a loser.

or you could have. why not? cause you either didn't want to know the truth or you don't care what the truth is. either one make you a basket dweller. i got the quote for you not to prove i tell the truth - cause there's no need to lie... but to give myself an reason to say fuck you.... & neener neener.

lol...........i did notice you didn't address the f-a-c-t that there is a quote & cohen never said there was no collusion.

why? i made no claim. you did. that's your responsibility in this forum. why are you fking losers against fking rules? I don't get it.

If you want respect, give some fking respect.

haaaaaaaaaaaa........................ you thought i made it up. that's not respectful, given that i always will back up what i say. you still demanded a link & i gave you a link & you didn't acknowledge that it existed. how rude.

how deplorably rude.

To be accurate, I stated that without a link and a forward from the link, I couldn't trust what you wrote as a quote. The mere fact you tried to avoid proper protocol in here is the respect issue. I would never make a quote without a link or forward quote from it. EVER!!!. that is disrespectful to all who use this forum.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Copies are NOT legal evidence.

You are just pulling stuff out of your ass, at this point.

What is Forensic Hard Drive Imaging? - Forensicon

 

[danielpalos]

Trump Tower Moscow could potentially be an option if we "flip Trump";

with sufficient community service.