Is/will he be found guilty? That's ALL that matters. And no I'm not admitting it did, but if that's the only thing the DEMS thought they had on him Trump must be one of the cleanest politicians on the hill.
We can agree on that
Donald Trump
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
- Status
Ok, so "almost to the second for usb2 max speed" (IIRC about 60MB/s with no allowance for overheads) except you don't get that unless you're transferring a suitably large file to a device that has a fast enough write speed and there is nothing else going on with the system (the source drive, the destination device, the USB host).
Try transferring some files from a computer to a USB device (hard drive, memory stick etc), tell me if it stays at that theoretical USB 2 max speed for the whole process - it's pretty unlikely it will even for large files
Then some nonsense about them not managing to get half that speed across the atlantic is a really poor connection, and worthless as a test unless they're actually using the same server/hardware and it's done at the same time.
Of course the FBI are going to say their conclusions can't be fully varified, any decent investigator will put in qualifications if they can't be 100% certain of every aspect, that doesn't mean they're completely wrong in every aspect and in the most basic parts of their conclusion - they may have proof that the server was accessed illegally by an IP address, and that the information was transferred to that IP, they may have evidence that it was most likely by group A but if they can't prove that they'll put in the qualifier to cover the fact they aren't certain it was who they said it was, that doesn't mean they aren't certain about how it was done.
On the flip side it's so much more proof that it was done via a usb stick because someone looked at the data transfer speeds (I'm not sure most servers even log data transfered by USB connection in the server logs...) and because they couldn't duplicate that speed using a completely different server under different conditions at a different time.
That's like saying that the a car's claimed 0-60 time on a race track in the summer isn't possible because you couldn't do it in a muddy field whilst towing a caravan.
The impeachment only happened after the thing he was impeached for had actually happened. And it's been accepted that he did what he was accused of. It's just that the Republican Senate doesn't think he should be removed from office for it.
You're very willing to believe that it was some sort of political move by the Dems, despite it all being found to be true, yet you're not willing to apply the same scrutiny to the GOP signing off on it all being ok without talking to witnesses. why is that?
What? get over yourself..
I never attack people first, but I will if they do. I also thing I'vve been very patient with people, CronicLard/doodah for example, so I normally get on fine - But I will retaliate if attacked, especially if it's baseless.
What are you refering to? You have to be specific if you actually want an answer..
Let me get this straight, in your eyes Hillary is the dirtiest politician around and is guilty of all these crimes despite never being convicted of any yet Trump is clean because he's been acquitted by Republican senators (who, don't forget, have admitted that he is guilty, but they don't want to convict because it will upset his supporters)?Is/will he be found guilty? That's ALL that matters. And no I'm not admitting it did, but if that's the only thing the DEMS thought they had on him Trump must be one of the cleanest politicians on the hill.
look at the vote counts, it's all very partisan and went down party lines.
They controlled the house, ie a majority, so anything they wanted to force through they could - and did in the case of Trump.
They didn't need any witnesses to see that the 18 the DEMS call were all full of it. Again, the DEMS are crapping themselves as they had their noses so far in the trough they didn't see Trump coming..
It started with the Republican lead FBI, who was then fired. Then the Republican and Trump appointee assistant attorney general appointed a Republican as a special counsel.
So it was all started and led by Republicans and Trump appointees.
However i bet in your adorable little fantasy world, it was all a Dem conspiracy
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
dear oh dear, this is becoming more and more crazed as each day goes by.
Now you are getting it.
I do it all the time, I can show you if you want to come over.. Plug in a laptop HDD into a SATA - USB cable, then plug that in to your computer, using a USB2 port, and see what the speeds are - is it really that hard for people on a supposedly technical forum?Try transferring some files from a computer to a USB device (hard drive, memory stick etc), tell me if it stays at that theoretical USB 2 max speed for the whole process - it's pretty unlikely it will even for large files
This was in what 2016? Might be different now.
It was a get out clause in case someone smart enough to actually test it.
not at all.
Crap analogy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
She was SecState so although she would have had a big say at the table say she wasn't POTUS and she wasn't SecDef. Are you really crying for Gaddafi? He was a murdering madman who ruled Libya with an iron first for decades killing indiscriminately. It's like feeling sorry for Saddam Husain ffs. The Arab Spring started in Tunisia and then spread though North Africa into the Middle East. Gaddafi tried to put it down by murdering his own people. The US and European nations stepped up to stop him and try and stop it turning into a blood bath and not be highjacked by Muslim extremists. An almost impossible task. Was it perfectly handled, no. These situations rarely are. Lets not forget he effectively murdered 259 people on flight Pan Am 103 and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie. He had it coming from the US. He also embraced the murderer of Yvonne Fletcher when he arrived back in Libya and never handed him over.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
Yeah a successful and respected trial lawyer is a loony tune
You might not agree with him but trying to paint him as a loony is ridiculous. I don't agree with Lindsey Graham and think he is morally bankrupt but trying to say he's a loony or a fool would also be ridiculous. He is also an incredibly intelligent and successful trial lawyer. You don't get to be the chairman of the Intelligence Committee or the Judiciary Committee by being a loon. Quite the opposite in fact.You on the other hand had show all the signs of being a loon with your posts on here
And yet, you're only applying the "it's political" to the guys who came up with the evidence, and convinced the other side that it did actually happen. But you're not applying it to the side of the aisle which accepted some wrongdoing, but refused to speak to witnesses or engage properly with the process.
You see, this ^ just proves you're not arguing this in good faith. They DID need witnesses, they can't just decide they know better, because they are the government and they need to do things correctly in the name of democracy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
The Democratic caucus is in disarray.
Playing in to Trumps hands again.
Trump got 96% of the vote in Iowa
They are having technical problems with a mobile app. Embarrassing for the company who provided the service and state Dems but hardly "in disarray"
OMG incumbent gets huge massive majority of the GOP vote when he has no challenger. Shock horror!!!
The Democratic caucus is in disarray.
Playing in to Trumps hands again.
Trump got 96% of the vote in Iowa
I thought they were about selecting the democratic presidential candidate?
For a third time, where have I misrepresentated you or attacked you?
I'd love to know the thoughts of our residential Trump defenders on.....Trump only allowing himself on the ballot for some of the upcoming caususes? Not the first time it's been done but seems a little undemocratic no?
Some of you are trying to have a reasoned debate with this poster...
Well NO.
The Dems in Iowa said it was the data centre and not the app.
But there again, one can't trust the dems to tell the truth.
And there was other people running against Trump. You did know that...........Right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,190
- Location
- London, UK
Oh please they are absolute nobodies. People would struggle to know a single name without going to Google.
If he is so loved why is he even being challenged? No one challenged Obama in Iowa in 2012.
- Status