Putin - Trump meeting live feed

a reply to: Xcathdra

So I am seeing people talking about info Putin provided to Trump that shows the Clinton's received over 400 million in illegal donations to their charity.

Yes, he said that publicly, and asked for a reciprocal agreement... Russia will question the 12 indicted Russians with US representatives present but he expects the US to question the US intel officials with Russian representatives present.

In other words, we get our 12 indicted Russians and he gets any intel people who laundered money for Clinton. And interestingly enough, whenever I posted something about the summit uncovering dirt on US deep state actors, the usual suspects went insane trying to drive the thread off topic... and now no one has even responded to the actual reports coming out of Helsinki.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
So I am seeing people talking about info Putin provided to Trump that shows the Clinton's received over 400 million in illegal donations to their charity.

Certainly explains why all the usual suspects and former obama admin people are going nuts on twitter.

Rofl. Got any links? Who are those people?
Don't bother if it's the usual alt-right fan fiction Q crap you usually spread around

What flavor Kool aid are you guys drinking? Orange flavor I bet

a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Rofl. Got any links?

Rofl. Yes, your own ears.

About 32 minutes in, if I remember correctly. Oh, and feel free to complain about the source... CNN...



TheRedneck

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
en.wikipedia.org...

I tried googling proof of russian election meddling and this is the best i got. It mentions crowdstrikes conclusion but also doesnt offer proof. In fact the link on wikipedia that they use to verify proof of russias involvement is a vice news article.

Honest question here. Is Robert Mueller the one who is going to show the American people the actual proof of Russian meddling? Are we never going to see it and have to take other peoples word for it?

Here is the problem people keep claiming they need "proof" but no one can say exactly what proof is because every time new evidence comes out they change what "proof" is.

Oh look. You being disingenuous. Again. No surprise.
Can you define your version of "evidence" for us, so we can properly define "proof" for you? You're making the claim. Now back it up.

You think I have one different from the real one?

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Problem is all the proof and evidence given for shady # happening from the Russian side with connection to the GOP is being ignored completely by people like you because you need different evidence or proof not the ones you have been shown. Its ALWAYS NOT GOOD ENOUGH for many members of ATS to the point they make up stuff in order to deny it.

Honestly if it wasnt such a serious issue I would have given up ages ago trying to explain whats going on.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Quite amazing that the media won't talk about it.
$400 million dollars funneled to the Clinton campaign from Russia, effectively stolen from the Russian govt.
Putin is too smart to say this publicly without proof. You can be sure Trump has the details.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: TheRedneck

Quite amazing that the media won't talk about it.
$400 million dollars funneled to the Clinton campaign from Russia, effectively stolen from the Russian govt.
Putin is too smart to say this publicly without proof. You can be sure Trump has the details.

Given the behavior of certain media outlets and certain members of those media outlets they wont report on anything that might expose their own bias / collusion. The media is linked into politics and if they lose the politicians paying them what are they going to do?

a reply to: xxspockyxx

Putin says he didnt do it and the FBI got turned away from the suspected hacked server.

Actually, that's not true. I've been wondering aloud for many months about this. One example:

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

We do know from the lawsuit that CrowdStrike did do the post mitigation forensic analysis for the lawsuit. We also know from the lawsuit, that they went scorched earth. They claim more than 140 decommissioned servers, 180 PCs wiped and like a dozen servers "rebuilt." Not much context there but it sounds like the "rebuilt" servers were virtualization hosts and the 140 servers were VMs. I'd assume shared several terabytes of shared storage. I wonder if VHDs from the shared storage were provided to the FBI? There'd be no real reason to turn over the physical virtualization hosts/storage.

See, there are a lot of things that people simply don't grasp. I tried to outline a few in my other post. Anyway, as it turns out, the DNC did turn over drive images after all:

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

The “server” Trump is obsessed with is actually 140 servers, most of them cloud-based, which the DNC was forced to decommission in June of 2016 while trying to rid its network of the Russian GRU officers working to help Trump win the election, according to the figures in the DNC’s civil lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign. Another 180 desktop and laptop computers were also swapped out as the DNC raced to get the organization back on its feet and free of Putin’s surveillance.

But despite Trump’s repeated feverish claims to the contrary, no machines are actually missing.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

a reply to: Xcathdra

Given the behavior of certain media outlets and certain members of those media outlets they wont report on anything that might expose their own bias / collusion. The media is linked into politics and if they lose the politicians paying them what are they going to do?

There has never been a higher level of integration than the Donald Trump administration and Fox News.

a reply to: TheRedneck

In other words, we get our 12 indicted Russians and he gets any intel people who laundered money for Clinton. And interestingly enough, whenever I posted something about the summit uncovering dirt on US deep state actors, the usual suspects went insane trying to drive the thread off topic... and now no one has even responded to the actual reports coming out of Helsinki.

I'm just going to go ahead and call bull#. It's disturbing how the usual suspects go nuts trying to figure out some way to white knight Trump no matter what. Now Trump supporters, many of them the same people who lost their collective # yammering about Obama's "Apology Tour" 8 years ago are falling over one another to lick a foreign despot's boots to own the opposition.

Let me guess, this has something to do with Browder right? The stuff that Fusion GPS had dug up for Veselnitskaya's lobbying team?

I'll go find the thread.

ETA:

That appears just to be your wishful thinking?

So the $400 million claim appears to be what I thought: the "dirt" that Veselnitskaya brought to Don Jr at the Trump Tower meeting.

Putin's Pants-on-Fire claim about $400 million donation to Clinton from Bill Browder partners

" Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over 1.5 billion dollars in Russia," Putin said through a translator. "They never paid any taxes." Putin continued. "They sent a huge amount of money, over 400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton," he said. "Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.

So guess what didn't happen?

Did Browder's associates send $400 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign?

No. We found $17,700 donated to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

And honestly, on its face the idea of a $400 million donation to the Hillary Clinton campaign is absolutely ridiculous. I mean come on. $400 million? Four. Hundred. Million. US dollars? If memory serves, the largest campaign contribution in US election history before 2016 was made by Michael Bloomberg to his own campaign and it was something like $26-28 million. Trump reportedly spent something like $66 million on his campaign so that should be the largest amount given to a campaign by a single person.

originally posted by: links234
Another day another meeting with Trump making himself look like an idiot.

It's like if someone broke into your house, stole a bunch of your stuff and then told you, straight to your face, 'it wasn't me.' Then you believe them over your own spouse who was in the house when it happened. 'Sorry dear, he told me it wasn't him and I believe him over you.'

Oh, and to throw the entire US intelligence apparatus under the bus because ex-KGB officer Putin tells you, 'Yeah, no, I didn't do any hacking.'

If it's not the pee tape then this meeting tells me that Trump must owe billions to Putin, so subservient the whole time.

Agreed. I don't see any evidence/reason for collusion but Putin's chief advisor wrote the fsb guidebook to manipulating elections to sow confusion and weaken countries through division and suspicion of national intel, gov, democracy etc... they've used it on every other country.

He's Putin's bitch and acting like a Kremlin mouthpiece at the moment; is starting to seem like they may have something or they may just be playing to his ego so he'll sell the US down the river to protect himself/try and grab positive press.

I watched Putin's interview on Fox last night. It was very interesting.

One interesting thing I noted was when he was asked what he thought of the timing of the Russian indictments just as Trump was meeting with him. Putin looked... amused/disgusted/ridiculing, and said something like he is not going to comment on US political theatrics.

That really hit home for me. We know it already, but it made something clear. Rosenstein is no friend to Trump. Rosenstein and Mueller are definitely part of the Resist movement.

The timing of the indictments was so obviously meant to disrupt the Putin meeting and put Trump in a no-win situation. His choices were to destroy relations with Putin and come down hard on him, or try to establish relations, in which case the Democrats would use that against him to make him look weak.

I think Trump made the only choice that he could. He brought up the charges, and made a logical deal with Putin to investigate the situation further. And he tried to salvage their relationship. I'm not sure how that went, but we can see that Trump is trying.

The Resist movement cares more about destroying Trump than about the security of the US. That much is clear.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm just going to go ahead and call bull#.

Hey, go right ahead.

Point is, this now has nothing to do with Trump. Trump just asked for the 12 Russians, like Mueller wanted. He got them. But... Putin gets to press charges against our intel community for suspected bad deeds. Fair is fair, right?

if they're innocent, they have nothing to worry about. But if they're not... there will be a Russian official right there to call "bull#" on us. No more skewed investigations; no more slaps on the wrist; no more sweeping things under the rug.

Can you say "Thank you, Bob Mueller"? I thought you could...

TheRedneck

Another point from the Putin interview yesterday... There is something that is being misrepresented by the media (surprise, surprise).

In the interview, Putin did NOT deny that the named Russians hacked the US. What he said was that this was not government sanctioned. Putin said something about these men thinking they were patriots, or something like that. (It's hard to quote, as he was talking through an interpreter.)

One possible theory:
I wonder if this is why Putin would be fine with these men facing charges.
What IF these men were actually against Putin? Could they have been part of some other movement to take Putin out of power?
What if they were trying to get the US to take Putin out? As we know, any hacker worth anything, especially in government security, is able to cover their tracks. Why were these hacks able to be tracked? Did they want the US to blame the Russian government?
Could they be part of a movement among the people, such as for gun rights which are being taken away by Putin?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xxspockyxx

Putin says he didnt do it and the FBI got turned away from the suspected hacked server.

Actually, that's not true. I've been wondering aloud for many months about this. One example:

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

We do know from the lawsuit that CrowdStrike did do the post mitigation forensic analysis for the lawsuit. We also know from the lawsuit, that they went scorched earth. They claim more than 140 decommissioned servers, 180 PCs wiped and like a dozen servers "rebuilt." Not much context there but it sounds like the "rebuilt" servers were virtualization hosts and the 140 servers were VMs. I'd assume shared several terabytes of shared storage. I wonder if VHDs from the shared storage were provided to the FBI? There'd be no real reason to turn over the physical virtualization hosts/storage.

See, there are a lot of things that people simply don't grasp. I tried to outline a few in my other post. Anyway, as it turns out, the DNC did turn over drive images after all:

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

The “server” Trump is obsessed with is actually 140 servers, most of them cloud-based, which the DNC was forced to decommission in June of 2016 while trying to rid its network of the Russian GRU officers working to help Trump win the election, according to the figures in the DNC’s civil lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign. Another 180 desktop and laptop computers were also swapped out as the DNC raced to get the organization back on its feet and free of Putin’s surveillance.

But despite Trump’s repeated feverish claims to the contrary, no machines are actually missing.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

So according to your link there is a 29 page detailed document that was filed last Friday as proof the GRU was behind the hack. I could not find on your link anyway to access these 29 pages. Is this the proof that I have been asking for? Does anyone know where I can find it?

a reply to: theantediluvian

The problem I have here, is this is all heavily slanted conjecture stitched to a couple small patches of truth, and it's own fair share of dishonesty by omission. However, the gist of it is this : The heads of the DNC, and their candidate Clinton were greasy, unscrupulous and unethical. This public revelation made people not want to support the DNC's candidate, and hurt her chances of being President; Because more people would have supported her if they didn't know how greasy, unscrupulous and unethical they were. Is that correct ? The exposure hurt her, because the voters were better informed about the character of her and her party heads. And this is point of contention, that people less informed would have made a different choice.

I can't really get behind that.

For example, we know Podesta got phished. We don't know that Russia was the State-Actor who hacked the DNC server, because it was never studied by Law-Enforcement, nor by any of the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Agencies. We do know however, that the DNC emails were leaked by Seth Rich to Wiki-Leaks. This is revealed by two 2 methods ; First is the reward in relation to his murder. Wiki-Leaks is not in the business nor the habit of chasing down unsolved murders, nor are they I the habit of offering rewards for random murders. The fact that Wiki-Leaks is offering a reward regarding this specific case it is logical to consider this Assange's Ipso-Facto admission of source. But more pointedly Craig Murray of Wiki-Leaks has already publicly admitted to receiving the emails in person, from Seth Rich through an intermediary. Who that person is, is speculation as I do not remember ever hearing from Craig Murray who the intermediary was.

Could that person have been a Russian agent ? Possibly, but it's doubtful that Seth Rich was involved in Russian espionage against the United States. As it was Seth Rich who choose the intermediary.

They provided a GOP operative with gigs of voter data, analysis and strategy documents. That data was later provided to longtime Trump bag man Roger Stone.

This is blatantly untrue. Both in virtue and in the wording you chose. Unless of course you are accusing the entire GOP of being Russian operatives or involved in espionage on Russia's behalf. Which we both know you're not.... Right ? We do know that Roger Stone was approached with an offer of "dirt on Clinton" but it wasn't anyone working on behalf of the GOP ; So the nomenclature "GOP Agent" is willfully dishonest. We do know, it was someone working on behalf of the FBI attempting to entrap campaign/cabinet officials.

FBI Agents/spies/informants, approached Stone and others.... Not people working on behalf of the GOP. Nor were they working on Russia's behalf. Unless you're linking the FBI heads who attempted this, to Russian Espionage.

I find that abit far fetched as well.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian
For example, we know Podesta got phished. We don't know that Russia was the State-Actor who hacked the DNC server, because it was never studied by Law-Enforcement, nor by any of the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Agencies. We do know however, that the DNC emails were leaked by Seth Rich to Wiki-Leaks.

That's just patently false. The FBI studied the server image and US Agencies had access to that same image. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how basic computer forensics works. You don't just seize hard drives and study them 'back at the office.' You make an image of the machine (virtual/cloud-based or not) and you take that image (that will show all the current connections and stored memory and volatile memory included) and look at it 'back at the office.'

We do know that Guccifer 2.0 was actually (at least) 12 different GRU intel operatives. We do know that they used specific IP addresses to VPN into the servers, those IP's all point back to Russia. We do know that they've done similar things in the past and left similar bread-crumbs (so to speak) in the past and it all points back to Russia as an APT actor.

The emails you're referring to were not leaked, they were accessed from Russia and handed over to wiki-leaks by Russia.

a reply to: links234

I understand how these things, and yes you can physically exam a server ; It does not need to be a server image. Arguing that it's good enough, is like saying the FBI only accepts photo's of drug deals and never actually inserts an agent into the drug deal, to capture the people involved. Further more, can you link me to the FBI's conclusions, after examining the server image ? I have not seen them, which is not to say they don't exist it's just you'd think those conclusions would be well known. As far as I know, the FBI hasn't examined it nor have they released their findings.

The emails you're referring to were not leaked, they were accessed from Russia and handed over to wiki-leaks by Russia.

What evidence do you have of this ? Because without reason to disbelieve the people involved, they've already stated the Emails were leaked. One prominent member stating it was Seth Rich.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

What if they were trying to get the US to take Putin out? As we know, any hacker worth anything, especially in government security, is able to cover their tracks. Why were these hacks able to be tracked? Did they want the US to blame the Russian government?
Could they be part of a movement among the people, such as for gun rights which are being taken away by Putin?

European politicians need an excuse, or multiple excuses or justifications, for selling the political decision of assigning more expenditures towards NATO, their military and intelligence agencies to their public or audience. It's easier to sell when Russia can be depicted as a threat again. More perceived threats is better for the various military industrial complexes around the world (including international corporations that stand to profit from an increased level of threat) that have quite a bit of power and influence in many countries and organizations like NATO. Tension between Russia and the West is profitable for all involved in doing the bidding of those who stand to profit from the kind of expenditures I just talked about. That counts for both depicted sides in this WWE-wrestling show with politicians and political leaders. Since the video in the OP doesn't work anymore...

Live at the Helsinki Market Square Arena:
Trump vs Putin!

Fascism Glorifies War

To fight? Yes! “War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it,” Mussolini once said, adding: “War is to the man what maternity is to the woman.” He called perpetual peace “depressing and a negation of all the fundamental virtues of man.” In saying these words, Mussolini was simply mirroring the views of Treitschke, who contended that war was a necessity and that banishing it from the world, besides being profoundly immoral, “would involve the atrophy of many of the essential and sublime forces of the human soul.”

Against this background of war and dictatorship, we may not be surprised to learn that many historians trace the beginning of modern Fascism back to Napoléon I of France. Dictator during the early 1800’s, he was admittedly no Fascist himself. Nevertheless, many of his policies, such as the establishment of a secret-police system and the skillful use of propaganda and censorship to control the press, were later adopted by the Fascists. And certainly his determination to restore the glory of France is typical of the obsession with national greatness for which Fascist leaders have become known.

"restore the glory of France", 'make France great again'?

Source: Part 6—Blackshirts and Swastikas